PDA

View Full Version : Paul Ryan!!!



fatbeer
08-10-2012, 10:43 PM
Game changer!!!

PseudoSABR
08-11-2012, 12:25 AM
Game changer!!!
No, it's doubling down.

It's a wet dream for you, but my first reaction is that I don't see how this pick wins the White House. He's a career politician with no business experience. His right-wing fiscal policies certainly pair with Romney's perceived agenda, but I don't see how he curries any new voters nor does he seem to sure up any weaknesses.

fatbeer
08-11-2012, 05:39 AM
It depends if Obama can convince us he eats babies or not. Worst economy ever and Obama is unwilling to fight on the issues.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-11-2012, 08:25 AM
Shuffling the chairs on the deck of the titanic at this point.

TheLeviathan
08-11-2012, 08:56 AM
Ryan is direct, smart, and very fiscally focused. Those are all strong things to bring to the table. Let's be honest, many of the exchanges Ryan has had over his budget with the White House he has generally gotten the better of the argument - whether you agree with his approach or not - at least he's upfront and honest. He's not afraid to have a conversation about what's wrong.

To people like me - that is a welcome breath of fresh air.

PseudoSABR
08-11-2012, 01:00 PM
He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

drjim
08-11-2012, 01:58 PM
He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

I generally agree with this. Ryan has talent but I can't shake the thought that he really speaks to a minority of the electorate. The other downside is that it changes the main focus of the campaign from the poor economy to fundamental change in the social safety net. I think people like the idea of reform in the abstract but balk when it is presented in real terms of cuts to medicare and whatnot. I also doubt massive tax cuts for the wealthy is a winner right now.

drjim
08-11-2012, 02:01 PM
It depends if Obama can convince us he eats babies or not. Worst economy ever and Obama is unwilling to fight on the issues.

And now Romney has moved the discussion from the economy to huge fiscal cuts.

The Democrats won't even have to exaggerate with Ryan just make sure voters know exactly what is in his budget.

Reginald Maudling's Shin
08-11-2012, 03:52 PM
I generally agree with this. Ryan has talent but I can't shake the thought that he really speaks to a minority of the electorate. The other downside is that it changes the main focus of the campaign from the poor economy to fundamental change in the social safety net. I think people like the idea of reform in the abstract but balk when it is presented in real terms of cuts to medicare and whatnot. I also doubt massive tax cuts for the wealthy is a winner right now.
I agree with you as well. Ryan speaks to the minority of the electorate. The minority that actually pays taxes. Personally I could give a **** less what they guy down the street is paying, but evidently I'm in the vast minority there.

If we don't get a hold on spending, especially (but not only) entitlement spending, tax rates will not matter. I am glad Ryan had the balls to take on the issue. I just hope people don't dismiss Romney out of pure jealousy and envy of his worth, because it looks like that's the direction Obama has chosen to move his campaign.

Taxes are essentially a giant game of chicken now anyways. The more you raise them the more people will try to get out of them. The only "fair" tax is a flat rate with no BS deductions, credits, etc. Steve Forbes had this figured out 25 years ago, but my guess is the Democrats and Republicans can't resist taking this issue off the table since they both think they are right, squabbling over the relatively small amounts the majority of us actually end up paying while taxing/borrowing and spending us into oblivion.

fatbeer
08-11-2012, 07:06 PM
About 60% will vote in this election, which means the 40% can keep there heads in the sand if they want. The rest of us will vote based on the real fiscal crisis we are facing. I want the economy fixed for the long term, and if that means benifits have to be ajusted downward in the short term so be it.

As for moderates who cares as long as Obama's team keeps accusing Rommney of major crimes with no evidence the moderates will stay home or vote Rommney.

Jocko87
08-11-2012, 08:29 PM
He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

I generally agree with this. Ryan has talent but I can't shake the thought that he really speaks to a minority of the electorate. The other downside is that it changes the main focus of the campaign from the poor economy to fundamental change in the social safety net. I think people like the idea of reform in the abstract but balk when it is presented in real terms of cuts to medicare and whatnot. I also doubt massive tax cuts for the wealthy is a winner right now.

Are you saying that the minority of Americans believe in cutting government spending? I just can't believe this, it's one of the greatest running jokes there is-the $2000 Kindle or the $25,000 toilet seat come to mind. This is why the Dem's get no traction with me, all the taxes in the world won't solve the real problem.

I like Ryan alot. Watch this three part series on the youtubes... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE&feature=relmfu

Lots of straight talk about pain to come and he also addresses the main lib concerns of "evil corporations" and the "evil 1%" Removing the loopholes effectively raises taxes for them by actually taxing the real money. True leaders tackle hard issues, even if there is pain involved. I hope he can pull it off.

flpmagikat
08-11-2012, 09:10 PM
Lol at people thinking a republican president Will cut spending. When was the last time that happened?

And game changer? Yeah mitt really flipped the script choosing the epitome of sterotypical republicans as his running mate.

gunnarthor
08-11-2012, 09:44 PM
Ryan isn't a good choice. It's too easy to point out that his budget priorities hurt the poor and middle class and help the rich. And it won't take much to make seniors - who generally support Romney - get nervous about proposed cuts to things like medicaid. It's also hard to take anyone seriously about lowering government spending who isn't willing to make serious cuts to our defense spending. Ryan's just another right-wing flake. He energizes the birther base but he'll turn off moderates and independents.

fatbeer
08-11-2012, 11:44 PM
It won't take much for Obama to scare seniors? Keep up the ads accusing Romney of murder. Good luck with that one. When you basically tell the voters you think there idiots who will buy anything you tell them it doesn't work out to well. If Obama wants the senior vote he better either start telling the truth or figure out how to become white.

TheLeviathan
08-12-2012, 02:55 PM
He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

Jocko87
08-12-2012, 04:33 PM
He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

And the line of reasoning that the republicans want to make kids dumb and leave seniors in the streets doesn't fly with me either. As if republicans don't have kids and parents and people they care about. I firmly believe that nobody will take care of you better than yourself, certainly not the government, and we need to get back to that line of thinking.

PseudoSABR
08-12-2012, 11:51 PM
He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.
Everyone is for getting rid of spending on frivolous toilet seats and the like, but that argument is totally disingenuous (I mean, seriously?). Newt, yes NEWT!, called the Ryan budget plan "suicide" and "right wing social engineering." His idea of budget cuts are totally extreme and imbalancely affects the poorest and weakest Americans. I'm just not sure who is this "we" you're talking about, because it's certainly not me or my extended family or friends.

In my opinion, the people who can afford to bare the burden of hard economic times should bare the burden. I don't buy that supply-side, job-creator crap for one second.

PseudoSABR
08-12-2012, 11:55 PM
He's pretty far right, though Levi. Shrinking government spending from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75? Vouchers? Getting rid of Medicaid? I don't see how this wins middleclass or swing votes. It will rally fiscal conservatives, but such people will have to throw off their "moderate" clothing.

Jocko hit a lot of the points I was going to. Yes he's pretty far right fiscally, but that may be exactly what we need. The reality is that we can raise taxes and cut the military and STILL have a problem.

I, for one, appreciate someone willing to take on the actual problem even if it isn't politically popular. We should all be looking for that in our elected officials.

And the line of reasoning that the republicans want to make kids dumb and leave seniors in the streets doesn't fly with me either. As if republicans don't have kids and parents and people they care about. I firmly believe that nobody will take care of you better than yourself, certainly not the government, and we need to get back to that line of thinking.Right. But that's totally naive. What about people that can't or won't care for themselves? What about people without family to care for them? Yes, dumb kids and people in the streets is what you get. We should encourage people to be individually responsible, but not be so naive to believe that everyone is able to do so. Stop being so cheap; that's your problem.

This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder. (I seriously can't believe Levi gave this guy any credibility.)

biggentleben
08-13-2012, 12:03 AM
It won't take much for Obama to scare seniors? Keep up the ads accusing Romney of murder. Good luck with that one. When you basically tell the voters you think there idiots who will buy anything you tell them it doesn't work out to well. If Obama wants the senior vote he better either start telling the truth or figure out how to become white.

Okay, this is driving me nuts:
there = a place "Tommy ran over there."
their = ownership "Tommy ran over their dog."
they're = they are "Tommy ran over their dog over there. They're pissed at him."

Thanks.

biggentleben
08-13-2012, 12:13 AM
This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital. Does Medicare/Medicaid need some major work? Absolutely. Are there people taking money from welfare/disability payments that could work and earn on their own? Rarely, but it happens. What many don't understand is that those programs are state-run programs with federal money. You want to bitch about the stereotypical FoxNews talking point of the Welfare mother on her iPhone? Bitch to your governor and state legislature for not doing a better screening job. You're pissed off about someone worth 6 figures+ being eligible for Medicaid? Talk to your state social services organization about their screening processes. Cutting federal money to these programs is like putting a band-aid on a chainsaw cut. The real issue needs to be getting these systems set up in a way that spends the federally provided funds on those who truly need it. I work every day with those who ABSOLUTELY need those funds to live their lives, and many of them would be screwed in Ryan's proposed system from his 'Sconnie days as they don't meet his standards of truly worthy of those who "deserve" our support.

glunn
08-13-2012, 12:52 AM
It seems to me that we have lost the ability to compromise. In the past the Democrats and Republicans were able to trade increases in taxes for decreases in spending.

And I would hope that we could all agree that military spending needs to be trimmed.

biggentleben
08-13-2012, 01:39 AM
It seems to me that we have lost the ability to compromise.

A friend and I were discussing this earlier this week. We were discussing what was required for the last time we could remember both parties working together, which was during Clinton's administration when the Republicans had the Contract With America. There was some drastic disgust with what Republicans had done in Clinton's first couple of years, which was very similar to what has been done in Obama's administration to block anything he has brought up. The difference is that we seem to be moving more toward those extremes rather than like in 1994 when we moved toward the middle to work together, regardless of party, to get things done that truly helped the entire nation.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 06:18 AM
It won't take much for Obama to scare seniors? Keep up the ads accusing Romney of murder. Good luck with that one. When you basically tell the voters you think there idiots who will buy anything you tell them it doesn't work out to well. If Obama wants the senior vote he better either start telling the truth or figure out how to become white.

Okay, this is driving me nuts:
there = a place "Tommy ran over there."
their = ownership "Tommy ran over their dog."
they're = they are "Tommy ran over their dog over there. They're pissed at him."

Thanks.

Sweet you'are a 100% their there they're expert. I'd rather be an expert on economics and math, but thatare'is my problem.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 06:27 AM
This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.

Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.

gunnarthor
08-13-2012, 09:31 AM
This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.

Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.

Charitable givings are nice but after you deduct how little he paid in taxes that normal Americans have to pay (and the many tax shelters he has available to him), it's likely that his taxes + charitable giving is still a lower % than what most Americans give over.

But the point of his tax returns isn't that he's some wealthy prick (well, not completely the point). In an era of tough economic times, wouldn't we all be better off with a discussion on the economic disparity that different classes of Americans face? Everyone knows that the rich get treated better by our system but I don't think many people understand just how much better. The former Dodgers owners never paid income tax because of all the tax loopholes in the system. We have a presidential candidate that hides a lot of his money in foreign accounts and, under the Ryan budget, would have paid less than 1% in taxes. Money has made it nearly impossible for normal Americans to run for Congress. Money from a handful of very rich people may have a determinative effect on all elections going forward, heck one person kept Newt Gingrinch's presidential run alive long after republican voters had left him. Money may lead to many Americans being disenfranchised by voter id laws and gerrymandering. Discussing the role of money and the differences among the classes of Americans is a good thing. Shining a light on Romeny's actions can help with that conversation.

DPJ
08-13-2012, 09:58 AM
Not that I care as a non-voter, but I guess I wanna know.

Does Mitt have any chance at beating the African-American?

TheLeviathan
08-13-2012, 10:00 AM
Everyone is for getting rid of spending on frivolous toilet seats and the like, but that argument is totally disingenuous (I mean, seriously?). Newt, yes NEWT!, called the Ryan budget plan "suicide" and "right wing social engineering." His idea of budget cuts are totally extreme and imbalancely affects the poorest and weakest Americans. I'm just not sure who is this "we" you're talking about, because it's certainly not me or my extended family or friends.

In my opinion, the people who can afford to bare the burden of hard economic times should bare the burden. I don't buy that supply-side, job-creator crap for one second.

God this naive socialism is frustrating. Do you not pay attention to Europe? You realize that most policies being implemented are in the hopes of a future economic rebound to mask the real issues?

The "we" I refer to is any thinking American. If I walk up to my house expecting it to have a secure foundation, the last thing I want is the foundation repair guy to hand me a lollipop and tell me that "yeah, things will be fine!" I'd much prefer he tell me: "No...your **** is cracked. You need to do something" We can disagree about the how, but you god damn well better appreciate the effort to not hide the real problems. Otherwise what you get is a system in which the lollipop pushers become the norm because that is the way you get elected.


We should encourage people to be individually responsible, but not be so naive to believe that everyone is able to do so. Stop being so cheap; that's your problem.

No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.

And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 11:11 AM
Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an (R) next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

biggentleben
08-13-2012, 11:52 AM
Okay, this is driving me nuts:
there = a place "Tommy ran over there."
their = ownership "Tommy ran over their dog."
they're = they are "Tommy ran over their dog over there. They're pissed at him."

Thanks.

Sweet you'are a 100% their there they're expert. I'd rather be an expert on economics and math, but thatare'is my problem.

Never claimed to be an expert, but you want people to pay attention to what you say, take the 0.001 seconds it takes to ensure you're not ALWAYS using the wrong version. I'd also take the math and economics, and have done so, but I tend to enjoy people listening to what I say when I utilize that expertise.

Ultima Ratio
08-13-2012, 01:35 PM
Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an (R) next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

You sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing.:rolleyes: <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org. :)

PseudoSABR
08-13-2012, 02:10 PM
No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.
How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

We all agree that people need to take personal responsibility. But it's lazy and glib to insist on them to just magically acquire it. Pig is spot on that we need welfare programs to actually WORK and succeed at job placement, but that costs money and takes planning and talented people, we can't expect further and further scaled down programs to manage that. Again, people are being cheap. There might be a short term loss in bolstering welfare-to-job programs (say paired with public works projects), but you'd effectively change worthless citizens into contributors.

(For the record Ryan voted for TARP and both Wars.)

Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.

PseudoSABR
08-13-2012, 02:13 PM
Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an (R) next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

You sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing.:rolleyes: <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org. :)Are you being serious? Because I can show you some liberal/progressive ideas, so you can better spot them in the future.

My new liberal ideas: an army of pick pocketers on Wall Street, and squatting training sessions at community theaters and how to live off student loans into your fifties!

Fatt Crapps
08-13-2012, 02:57 PM
The "we" I refer to is any thinking American.

Hahaha.

PseudoSABR
08-13-2012, 03:19 PM
Not that I care as a non-voter, but I guess I wanna know.

Does Mitt have any chance at beating the African-American?
Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) sees Obama's chances at over 70 percent. I just don't see how the math works in Romney's favor. Obama will need to have a serious gaffe in order for Romney to win.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 03:26 PM
Paul Ryan has some good ideas and he has some crazy, fringe ideas that go too far IMO. The thing is that with Mitt running the show, I don't see his influence making a lick of difference. Real change needs to happen in this country but it has to come from both sides. Defense spending is ridiculous. Our fingers are in too many foreign pies, supporting corrupt regimes. Our welfare system needs a real, smart overhaul that consists of more than "cut funding". Pay people to go back to work. Encourage productivity by giving productive people more money and then wean them off the system as they make more in future years. Tear apart the education system and teach REAL SCIENCE to kids. Subsidize certain areas of schooling and encourage more students to study math, science, and technology.

On the other hand, extending tax cuts for the wealthy needs to stop and the term "job creators" needs to be called out for what it is (trickle down economics). The fact that Mitt is paying ~15% is unacceptable. Close the loopholes and simplify the code with a focus on strengthening the middle class.

Both sides have their heads up their asses, as usual. We're embroiled in arguments about gay marriage and voter ID fraud that doesn't exist instead of talking about real problems with the country. But right now, most of that "real issue" deflection is coming from the right and the blatant poll-rigging they're trying to pull with Voter ID laws is so nauseating that I'm going to have to think long and hard before checking any boxes with an (R) next to them this November. I used to slant pretty hard to the right and now I can't even stomach what most of them are saying... The problem isn't me shifting left, the problem is that the core of the GOP continues to slant right way beyond what should be considered normal or rational.

You sound like an impartial independent voter with all the forgoing.:rolleyes: <<<Sarcasm>>> I hope no on carelessly drops an ember on this field of straw men. Don't bother asking me to point all them out either in order to begin an argument. Just read it over carefully and reflectively. Be proud to call yourself progressive/liberal and move on.org. :)

Funny. You know me so well. I've voted for about twice as many Republicans as I have Democrats over the past 15 years. I've never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate (would have voted for Obama but my absentee ballot was screwed up and I never received it).

The problem, as I said earlier, is that the Republican Party stopped representing the bulk of my viewpoints (I've been a registered Libertarian for 13 years). Where I used to hold my nose over social issues and stamp that GOP candidate on my ballot because of economic issues, I can no longer do so in good conscience. The GOP has taken the last ten years and completely disenfranchised me as a voter. They started a completely unnecessary war. They continue to launch ridiculous campaigns against women's rights. They have let the religious nutjobs take over the party and destroy any goodwill I had for the party as a whole. They stopped even pretending to be fiscally responsible. I take it you missed the part where I advocated "tearing apart the education system"... Yeah, that's a really "liberal" idea, what with the teacher's union being a staunch Democratic support network for the past 30 years and all.

Once upon a time, I was able to laugh at Democrats as being naive, doey-eyed hippies whose feet were floating in the clouds while the GOP was full of grounded pragmatists. Slowly, the Democrats have become the pragmatists (somewhat, anyway) while the GOP has launched into the stratosphere promoting non-sensical arguments that cannot be settled with one another. On the one hand, you have a GOP that wants "personal responsibility" and for people to get off the government dole. On the other hand, you have a GOP that is trying to prevent women from getting free/cheap birth control and/or have abortions to prevent unwanted children. Hell, I think the government should give away birth control. Why? Because it's the cheap thing to do. You could feed an entire county of women birth control for five years for the cost of raising one kid on the government dole. You can't force poor people to stop having children but you can gain some of the effect by giving them a bounty of options on how not to breed. Problem marginalized with a few truckloads of pills... That's pragmatism at its finest. But that will never happen because the influx of religious zealotry has completely destroyed the pragmatic GOP that I once supported.

So, go ahead and call me a Liberal. I don't really care because I know it's not true (not that it's an insult anyway). I've remained mostly the same. It's the GOP that moved away from me, not the other way around. I'm still looking for rational, well-balanced solutions to problems. I'd love to vote for a GOP candidate (Huntsman, anyone?) but the GOP stopped nominating people I could stomach quite some time ago and when they do nominate someone I can stand (I don't actually think Romney is that bad), that candidate has to backtrack on any "liberal" ideas they have so heavily and strongly support ridiculous religious rhetoric in its place that you have no idea who you're voting for anymore.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 05:59 PM
This reminds of the dumbest advice in the world: poor people should just try harder.

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital.

Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.

Charitable givings are nice but after you deduct how little he paid in taxes that normal Americans have to pay (and the many tax shelters he has available to him), it's likely that his taxes + charitable giving is still a lower % than what most Americans give over.

But the point of his tax returns isn't that he's some wealthy prick (well, not completely the point). In an era of tough economic times, wouldn't we all be better off with a discussion on the economic disparity that different classes of Americans face? Everyone knows that the rich get treated better by our system but I don't think many people understand just how much better. The former Dodgers owners never paid income tax because of all the tax loopholes in the system. We have a presidential candidate that hides a lot of his money in foreign accounts and, under the Ryan budget, would have paid less than 1% in taxes. Money has made it nearly impossible for normal Americans to run for Congress. Money from a handful of very rich people may have a determinative effect on all elections going forward, heck one person kept Newt Gingrinch's presidential run alive long after republican voters had left him. Money may lead to many Americans being disenfranchised by voter id laws and gerrymandering. Discussing the role of money and the differences among the classes of Americans is a good thing. Shining a light on Romeny's actions can help with that conversation.

At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

PseudoSABR
08-13-2012, 06:08 PM
Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 06:11 PM
No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.
How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

Assuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 06:19 PM
Not that I care as a non-voter, but I guess I wanna know.

Does Mitt have any chance at beating the African-American?
Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) sees Obama's chances at over 70 percent. I just don't see how the math works in Romney's favor. Obama will need to have a serious gaffe in order for Romney to win.

If you go by current polling the 70% figure is reasonable. Of course a pollster has a tough time figuring out turnout so a 3 or 4% swing from polls is not all that uncommon. I'd say Obama is in the lead but the wind is at Romneys back.

PseudoSABR
08-13-2012, 06:19 PM
No - the problem is we've made personal responsibility obsolete. Hell - if nothing else - lets fix the system so the people who do NEED help, get it. Right now it makes more sense to live off the government than to work for many people.
How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

Assuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards.This is so myopic. There aren't jobs for low-skilled people to work. Compare the number of job listings in the want-ads, to the actual unemployment numbers. I see nothing but middle aged adults working fast food jobs these days (here in Michigan, at least). It's a myth that there's jobs available, and even if there were why isn't there a social program bridging the gap?

The free market is not producing enough jobs for low-skilled people, that's the problem. This is what happens when a country loses it's industrious sector. I am open to ideas about how to fix that problem, but I don't buy for a second that lower taxes is part of the solution. It's our labor that's too expensive, not our taxes.

No one chooses to live in the streets. Don't be an idiot. No one chooses that life; people might make poor choices leading to such a life, but they didn't choose it. Let's help people make better choices; it's cowardly to just cut and run.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 07:29 PM
Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 07:37 PM
Pretty significant movement towards Romney on intrade today for whatever thats worth.

PseudoSABR
08-13-2012, 07:37 PM
Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.Shame on you. I'm not at all deriding the Mormon Church, I'm suggesting that they are not in a position of need. For instance the Catholic Sisters (http://nunsonthebus.com/ryan-budget/) suggest how immoral the Ryan budget is. I have nothing against religious people, I have something against immoral people.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 07:45 PM
The man gives to charity huge amounts of money to causes outside of his church. Call him immoral again you classless partisan ass.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 07:45 PM
Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

Pseudo stated it pretty plainly. The Mormon Church is a better run business than most actual businesses. Their net worth is outrageous.

If anything, that's a compliment, not an insult. But go ahead and feign outrage if it makes you feel better about it.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 07:47 PM
The man gives to charity huge amounts of money to causes outside of his church. Call him immoral again you classless partisan ass.

Call someone a name again and you get the ban. I've posted all over these forums about where we draw the line and you just crossed it. If you can't discuss something civilly, find a different place to do it.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 09:13 PM
Calling someone immoral for giving money to charity of course isn't calling someone a name. It's kind of pathetic what is tolerated and what isn't, but sorry man. I figured saying the name of a certain political parties mascot was OK. And just for clarification "all over these forums" must mean something different to you then me because I would have seen it before at some point if it was all over these forums. What is this place rubechat?

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 09:15 PM
I like the fact that the guy that wants to ban me joined in the political discussion. Thats pretty tacky.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 09:17 PM
Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

Pseudo stated it pretty plainly. The Mormon Church is a better run business than most actual businesses. Their net worth is outrageous.

If anything, that's a compliment, not an insult. But go ahead and feign outrage if it makes you feel better about it.

Calling charitable giving immoral is impossible to let slide. Don't insult me by saying my feelings are fake.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 09:31 PM
Speaking of rubechat I got the ban for complaining about Dubay calling someone a drunk about three weeks before his first arrest. I guess when you know how right a person it's tough to deal with.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 09:36 PM
I like the fact that the guy that wants to ban me joined in the political discussion. Thats pretty tacky.

You were warned. Don't insult people. Keep the conversation above board or leave. It's that simple.

By the way, I "joined this conversation" two pages ago and I commented on Pseudo's statement while you were calling him an ass (look at the time stamps). And don't insult my intelligence by claiming you were referencing the party mascot. If I "wanted" to ban you, I would have done it SIX YEARS AGO.

TheLeviathan
08-13-2012, 09:45 PM
How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

So is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society.

The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense.


Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.

Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and B) He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane.

I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that.

fatbeer
08-13-2012, 09:46 PM
Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

Brock Beauchamp
08-13-2012, 09:53 PM
Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow. Until that happens, someone disagreeing with a public figure and stating an opinion isnt your concern and it certainly does not give you license to insult said poster.

I've said all there is to say on this. Let it rest and go back to your conversation.

Ultima Ratio
08-13-2012, 10:20 PM
Pig, no one knows what's in you head or heart but you, that's not the point. If one wants to be taken seriously, one should characterize issues and ideas fairly and accurately. The only reason I wrote something on the thread at all (because I'm just here for baseball and find these squabbles ineffective and only yielding resentment towards a poster that I/you might otherwise very much enjoy reading post about baseball. It colors one's view of that poster) is because the distortions and mischaracterizations in your post and others' deserve to be challenged. You say the GOP has left you? Fine. But don't say: you like Huntsman as a GOP candidate, that the GOP campaigns against women's rights ("war on women" garbage) because you think you have a right to make someone else pay for your contraceptives, use the phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy" and "trickle down economics" (a term coined by democrats to deride Reagan's policies in the 80's, when you say were a big republican) -- and expect us to believe you were ever a staunch "moderate" republican. If you don't want the government in you bedroom (and I don't) then don't have government/taxpayers pay for things that go on in your bedroom, okay? But uttering this makes one in a campaign against women? Come on. I've got to believe you are better than this, and by better I don't mean that you should believe something other than you believe, but at least try be fair. You would be the first person I've ever met to have said such things and claim to have been a GOP member.

gunnarthor
08-13-2012, 10:40 PM
At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters.

glunn
08-13-2012, 11:40 PM
[QUOTE=PseudoSABR;45125]
And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.

With all due respect, a 35% tax rate is not soaking the rich. If you look at (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213) historical income tax rates, you will see that the current rates on top earners are relatively low.

I agree with you that raising taxes will be only part of the solution. On the other hand, would you rather see some high earner pay a 50% marginal rate on income over $1 million than see a poor child die because of Medicaid cuts. I wonder what Jesus would say?

If only the two sides could compromise. The Republicans could agree to cut corporate welfare (especially weapons procurement and oil company subsidies), the Democrats could agree to cut social programs and both parties could agree to relatively modest tax increases. But this is impossible because some bonehead sleazeball named Grover Norquist has persuaded too many Republicans to sign his pledge never to increase taxes. And even if Jesus sent a meteor down to send Norquist to hell, the special interests who own both parties would never let Congress do the things that would truly bail us out.

PseudoSABR
08-14-2012, 01:19 AM
And again, I'll keep saying it - we will not fix this problem by soaking the rich. It simply will not fix the problem. Europe is soaking the rich now and it's not bailing them out either. Get off this friggin nonsense about that please. I'm 100% for raising taxes on the rich and closing tax loopholes for corporations and individuals - BUT THIS WILL NOT FIX THE PROBLEM. It's only part of the solution. And until people like you stop playing the "you wouldn't shoot this poor, defenseless bunny?" routine about every social program we're not going to make any meaningful progress.

With all due respect, a 35% tax rate is not soaking the rich. If you look at (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213) historical income tax rates, you will see that the current rates on top earners are relatively low.

I agree with you that raising taxes will be only part of the solution. On the other hand, would you rather see some high earner pay a 50% marginal rate on income over $1 million than see a poor child die because of Medicaid cuts. I wonder what Jesus would say?

If only the two sides could compromise. The Republicans could agree to cut corporate welfare (especially weapons procurement and oil company subsidies), the Democrats could agree to cut social programs and both parties could agree to relatively modest tax increases. But this is impossible because some bonehead sleazeball named Grover Norquist has persuaded too many Republicans to sign his pledge never to increase taxes. And even if Jesus sent a meteor down to send Norquist to hell, the special interests who own both parties would never let Congress do the things that would truly bail us out.Liberals and Democrats, generally, are willing to comprise. We want policy over ideology. This is often framed as weakness, and I might agree. I'd personally love to take the moral fight to conservatives; I'd love for them to define decency and corral a sense of ethics. But that's personal. And really not about solutions.

Look, we all agree that entitlements and government spending leaves much to be desired; we all want to make such programs efficacious. But doing away altogether with such programs is cowardly and immoral. A bit of patriotism: I don't doubt American ingenuity can find a way to do right by the poor without screwing the working class. Government, as ugly as the word, is a path to doing right by people beyond our selves; yes, we need to hold elected clowns accountable, but we must also give such officials the capacity to do their jobs. There is policy that can be made to help weakest among us live better lives.

Personally, I live in near luxury (as is); I can give more, even with my poverty level income. I'm not about giving anyone free rides, but I am about using the excess of my income to help level the playing field for the less fortunate. I'd happily give up my cable (my xbox, my high speed internet, my whatever) if I knew that money was going to push welfare beneficiaries to rebuild our bridges and highways. Heck, we need merely give these tools jobs and the economy would ripen.

Honestly, I can't help but feel the conservative blue print is simply to let the less fortunate class die out. I don't see any other agenda. That's it. Old people too expensive. Working class too expensive. Some quick death might cheapen American labor and corporations might reinvest in our country. Oh boy.

PseudoSABR
08-14-2012, 02:50 AM
How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!)

So is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society.

The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense.Hey, Levi, I really don't disagree with you that people milk the system, that capable people become lazy, that some of us wilt before the hard-won life. I get that. But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life.

To ask another way, how much sunk cost is too much for civilization to be civil? My belief is that we really haven't given the weakest among us much of chance. We've been damn cheap in regard to making efficacious social programs and educational institutions. We don't invest in our schools and our communities; instead we seem to hope that some private benefactor might swoop in and save us all. (Swoon!) Again, the free market/private enterprise will not take care of the weakest among us--so what will we do? Are we so callous to give them street and the waiting room ER (which bites us in the butt anyway)? I think we can do better. I agree it will cost us more in the short run, a lot more, but we will benefit by having a skilled lower class, rather than a bitter, job-hopeless class. Again, there simply aren't jobs for such unskilled, near-derelict people to work. That sense of too-good American pride has long since washed away; American middle aged adults are willing to do whatever we ask of them as long as they can pay their bills and retire in non-misery. Under the Ryan plan, we don't even offer them that. Awful.



Paul Ryan has a NON-PLAN. His plan is to get rid of the social welfare plans, not fix them. Ryan seems to have no interest making better social welfare programs. And let's be clear, the market is not going to swoop in and provide jobs for loads of unskilled workers--Now, that's naive.

Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and B) He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane.

I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that.Some of what you say here makes sense, and I'm on board with. I am down for sensible cuts, only if we don't leave people out. We should fight for the efficacy of Medicare and Social Security, not weaken the basis of their premise; in my view, as an intellectual, as try-hard, as an earner, we must care for people that cannot (or refuse to) care for themselves and pay for it with our hard won dollars; we must not cheapen care to save ourselves a buck we probably don't need.

A point of policy: The Vouchers in Ryan's plan and the general idea of Vouchers make me sick. The only way vouchers save the government money is if these vouchers cheapen under the cost of health care. So that 100 dollar Voucher today isn't worth a 100 dollars of health care tomorrow. That's the only way that the system saves money, by cheapening the health care Medicare provides.

If you want to make entitlements more inexpensive, let's talk about taking the profits out providing health and housing to the elderly. The problem is that entitlements benefit for-profit enterprise, and obviously, such for-profit enterprises will make it as expensive as they can for programs that MUST exist (the essentially hold a monopoly over gov't, squash the gov'ts bargaining power to zero). It's not these entitlement programs that are the problem, it's the businesses that make profit off them.

Is it really such an awful thing that Americans live longer than we intended, and that we must pay more to care for our elderly? We can do this. Even if we must take less of our earnings. We can do this. Let's not be so cheap; let us who have jobs foot the bill to engender a self-sustaining class of Americans. It won't be cheap, but I believe we can do it. That is, if we want to.

fatbeer
08-14-2012, 05:01 AM
Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow.

When you call Mitt Romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and I'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC?

fatbeer
08-14-2012, 05:13 AM
At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters.

He's hurt by it because thats the angle of the lefts attack. But were not talking about what has been done, we're talking about what is happening now. Poll numbers can not reflect anything but the past, and in my opinion the Democrats are only hurting themselves. His tax records will be very similar to those he's already released, the left will have fun with that and it's to close to the election to allow that. The left asked for his tax records, he released them, and ever since the momentum from that ended the left has been asking for more daily. His dad released several years when he ran for president and if he ended up becoming president I might care. Why doesn't Warren Buffet pay his secretary a fair wage?

Not releasing them at this point will not make one reasonable voter assume he doesn't pay taxes, the lefts spin might sway a few undecideds. I think when we ignore the charitable givings we're left with two choices. Lobby the heck out of Obama to ban charitable givings from lowering taxes, or admit your to partisan for your opinion to mean anything.

Brock Beauchamp
08-14-2012, 06:17 AM
Pig, no one knows what's in you head or heart but you, that's not the point. If one wants to be taken seriously, one should characterize issues and ideas fairly and accurately. The only reason I wrote something on the thread at all (because I'm just here for baseball and find these squabbles ineffective and only yielding resentment towards a poster that I/you might otherwise very much enjoy reading post about baseball. It colors one's view of that poster) is because the distortions and mischaracterizations in your post and others' deserve to be challenged. You say the GOP has left you? Fine. But don't say: you like Huntsman as a GOP candidate, that the GOP campaigns against women's rights ("war on women" garbage) because you think you have a right to make someone else pay for your contraceptives, use the phrase "tax cuts for the wealthy" and "trickle down economics" (a term coined by democrats to deride Reagan's policies in the 80's, when you say were a big republican) -- and expect us to believe you were ever a staunch "moderate" republican. If you don't want the government in you bedroom (and I don't) then don't have government/taxpayers pay for things that go on in your bedroom, okay? But uttering this makes one in a campaign against women? Come on. I've got to believe you are better than this, and by better I don't mean that you should believe something other than you believe, but at least try be fair. You would be the first person I've ever met to have said such things and claim to have been a GOP member.

Trans-vaginal ultrasounds. If you don't think that's a declaration of war on women and their rights, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Equal pay laws are being demolished across the country. Whenever and wherever they can, the GOP is creeping in on contraceptive laws. Places like Georgia are trying to pass bills that make abortion after 20 weeks illegal, even if the child is stillborn. You may not think that's a war on women but it sure comes off that way to me.

I also used the term "extend tax cuts for the wealthy", which is 100% true. Bush cut taxes, now we're talking about extending them. The term "job creators" is a re-packaged version of trickle down economics that is being sold to the American public by portions of the GOP (not all, just some). I'm basically calling it out for what it is, that's all. It's an economic theory I think is complete and utter crap.

The thing is that I'm not a GOP member. Haven't been for almost 15 years (again, registered Libertarian). But I voted Republican far more often than I voted Democrat. I tolerated the GOP on social issues when I agreed with their fiscal policy. Then came Bush, a President who spent money like a drunken Democrat in Atlantic City. He also brought an exaggerated view on social policies with him. He was essentially a hybrid Democrat/Republican that was the worst of both worlds to me. Thankfully, he's gone... But in his place rose a crop of even more socially radical Republicans, the Tea Party, with great ideas such as "let's teach creationism in a science class, even though it's not science" and they riled up the GOP base so much that they ran several moderate Republicans (and Democrats) out of Congress. Instead of coming toward the middle on social issues and focusing on the economy, the GOP has drifted to the extremes... I still agree with them on some fiscal issues but those things are so overwhelmed by how much I disagree with the party on social issues that I can no longer vote for most Republicans in good conscience. Now, it's Voter ID laws, which are the most blatant attempt to rig the polls that I've ever seen. Voter fraud isn't a problem in this country and the small amount of fraud that happens isn't going to be fixed by these asinine laws. Most of these laws don't even cover absentee balloting, which is the easiest way to commit voter fraud (still not a problem, though). Absentee voting also happens to be a traditionally Republican voting block... It's just sickening. And the public is buying into it. Democracy is supposed to be an inclusive process god damn it, not something that parties are able to use to their own benefit by twisting laws around. In itself, Voter ID laws are almost enough to prevent me from checking a single (R) on my ballot this November. That's how much it repulses me.

Until the party eschews its crazy, radical side, I don't see how I can vote for a GOP Presidential candidate, even a moderate like Romney (who, in a vacuum, I don't believe would be a bad President, though I really don't like how much he's in bed with the banking industry). He's going to be pressured on all sides to start doing things I really disagree with and if Congress stays under GOP control, it makes it easier for the nutjobs to start railroading insane social bills through Congress and getting them on to Mitt's desk.

Thankfully, I believe most of the country agrees with me. I don't see Romney winning this election and given the current state of the GOP, I think that's a good thing.

TheLeviathan
08-14-2012, 07:20 AM
But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life.

What you continue to do is lump "lazy" with "needy". It's your insistence on this that muddles the issue. People with disabilities, the elderly, children - these are people we can and should help. That we should provide for. The lazy should be given, to use your words, a "chance" not a "pass". You use a lot of language that masks what you're really saying - I'm all for programs that give people a "chance" but what they do now is offer a "pass" - that's the problem. People on the left, much like you have in this thread, immediately resort to the "don't shoot the poor bunny routine" anytime any reform effort is made. You immediately throw out these absurd "people dying in the streets" nonsense to mask a larger point -

The system is rife with fraud. Not because we don't put enough money into it - but because we EXPECT people will continue to fail and need us. And that we're ok giving them a "pass" if it avoids these silly worst-case scenarios you keep bringing up. If we give people a mile's worth of slack to be lazy - it isn't too shocking that they take every damn bit of that mile.


We should fight for the efficacy of Medicare and Social Security, not weaken the basis of their premise; in my view, as an intellectual, as try-hard, as an earner, we must care for people that cannot (or refuse to) care for themselves and pay for it with our hard won dollars; we must not cheapen care to save ourselves a buck we probably don't need.

There cannot be efficacy in programs like Medicaid and financial aid - they were built on liberal ideas. They HAVE to be reformed. Of course businesses will seek to profit from systems like this if we basically stamp the fundamental method of the program as "We'll pay for anything! Just send in the paperwork!"

Health care needs to change to a single payer, but many of the programs Ryan attacks - NEED to change. I work with medicaid every day, I know how much the disabled need it. I also know what a friggin joke it is for what it pays for. It can, and should, be reformed. Just because our intentions are good doesn't bless any strategy we take to fulfill them.

Brock Beauchamp
08-14-2012, 07:28 AM
But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life.

What you continue to do is lump "lazy" with "needy". It's your insistence on this that muddles the issue. People with disabilities, the elderly, children - these are people we can and should help. That we should provide for. The lazy should be given, to use your words, a "chance" not a "pass". You use a lot of language that masks what you're really saying - I'm all for programs that give people a "chance" but what they do now is offer a "pass" - that's the problem. People on the left, much like you have in this thread, immediately resort to the "don't shoot the poor bunny routine" anytime any reform effort is made. You immediately throw out these absurd "people dying in the streets" nonsense to mask a larger point -

The system is rife with fraud. Not because we don't put enough money into it - but because we EXPECT people will continue to fail and need us. And that we're ok giving them a "pass" if it avoids these silly worst-case scenarios you keep bringing up. If we give people a mile's worth of slack to be lazy - it isn't too shocking that they take every damn bit of that mile.

Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".

old nurse
08-14-2012, 09:29 AM
At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it.

As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters.

He's hurt by it because thats the angle of the lefts attack. But were not talking about what has been done, we're talking about what is happening now. Poll numbers can not reflect anything but the past, and in my opinion the Democrats are only hurting themselves. His tax records will be very similar to those he's already released, the left will have fun with that and it's to close to the election to allow that. The left asked for his tax records, he released them, and ever since the momentum from that ended the left has been asking for more daily. His dad released several years when he ran for president and if he ended up becoming president I might care. Why doesn't Warren Buffet pay his secretary a fair wage?

Not releasing them at this point will not make one reasonable voter assume he doesn't pay taxes, the lefts spin might sway a few undecideds. I think when we ignore the charitable givings we're left with two choices. Lobby the heck out of Obama to ban charitable givings from lowering taxes, or admit your to partisan for your opinion to mean anything.

1. Warren Buffet's secretary makes more than a fair wage, that has been well documented.
2. The issue is not if Romney paid taxes but the ethics behind how he filed taxes. There is a murkiness to his dealings. Through all the years of running for office there is all the information on Pelosi and Reid if you go digging. Disclosure is out there.

Musk21
08-14-2012, 11:17 AM
Can someone explain to me why anyone who makes under $250K should support 'The Ryan Plan?' http://abcnews.go.com/Business/paul-ryans-tax-plan-measures-americans/story?id=16994803#.UCopecXZGrg

biggentleben
08-14-2012, 01:14 PM
Part of the issue in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and the like are the people managing these programs and assisting those who are on them. You force organizations that help those who rely on these programs to pay below-average wages, based on their funding, to someone and continue to put restrictions on who they can hire, requiring more and more specified and extensive education for those below average wages. Many states now require a master's degree to work in mental health, for instance. Those jobs, even in the best case scenario, top out around $50K per year. Not that $50K is anything to snort at, but for that to be the ceiling of a job that requires a master's degree of college costs shows little societal value placed on the work done, and therefore, those in the job probably aren't going to feel bad about helping their clients get whatever they can from the system. Not saying it's right, but it's a cyclical thing. You want the best effort, you pay for that effort. You don't pay for it, you don't get it.

PseudoSABR
08-14-2012, 01:39 PM
Part of the issue in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and the like are the people managing these programs and assisting those who are on them. You force organizations that help those who rely on these programs to pay below-average wages, based on their funding, to someone and continue to put restrictions on who they can hire, requiring more and more specified and extensive education for those below average wages. Many states now require a master's degree to work in mental health, for instance. Those jobs, even in the best case scenario, top out around $50K per year. Not that $50K is anything to snort at, but for that to be the ceiling of a job that requires a master's degree of college costs shows little societal value placed on the work done, and therefore, those in the job probably aren't going to feel bad about helping their clients get whatever they can from the system. Not saying it's right, but it's a cyclical thing. You want the best effort, you pay for that effort. You don't pay for it, you don't get it.Same problem with teachers.

PseudoSABR
08-14-2012, 01:40 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html?hp=t1_3

old nurse
08-14-2012, 02:14 PM
Can someone explain to me why anyone who makes under $250K should support 'The Ryan Plan?' http://abcnews.go.com/Business/paul-ryans-tax-plan-measures-americans/story?id=16994803#.UCopecXZGrg

I would say from reading posts on other places many people view many of the entitlement programs as money for people who do nothing. They are mad about that. They get nothing. While I agree with the sentiment, I do not agree with their solution.
It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations. From what I could gather from various sources, more is spent on corporate welfare than those who could otherwise work. It may even well be true that more has been lost due to people defrauding the government from medicare scams and military waste than is spent on welfare for those who can work. But again, despite the claim made that corporations are people too, it is easier to arouse the base for a dislike of tangible people. Sometime in their lives it seems like everyone has seen or heard of someone paying for their groceries with EBT and getting into a new Cadillac. Arouse hate for the obvious cheater, each and every one of them receiving benefits is one. So the belief, IMO, is that the Ryan plan will fix that. They do not pay attention to the rest. If they believe in trickle down economics claiming the same worked for Reagan and the Bush tax cuts then, IMO, they listen to too many media talking heads.

biggentleben
08-14-2012, 03:21 PM
Part of the issue in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, welfare, and the like are the people managing these programs and assisting those who are on them. You force organizations that help those who rely on these programs to pay below-average wages, based on their funding, to someone and continue to put restrictions on who they can hire, requiring more and more specified and extensive education for those below average wages. Many states now require a master's degree to work in mental health, for instance. Those jobs, even in the best case scenario, top out around $50K per year. Not that $50K is anything to snort at, but for that to be the ceiling of a job that requires a master's degree of college costs shows little societal value placed on the work done, and therefore, those in the job probably aren't going to feel bad about helping their clients get whatever they can from the system. Not saying it's right, but it's a cyclical thing. You want the best effort, you pay for that effort. You don't pay for it, you don't get it.Same problem with teachers.

True, but in most states, teachers have established unions to work on their behalf. Not entirely all-encompassing, I understand, but still...

TheLeviathan
08-14-2012, 04:54 PM
Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".

Well, you know that you and I generally see pretty eye-to-eye on these issues. If you ever want to start our own political party, hit me up. But yes, it sounds like something worth trying. To me there are a couple key components of any plan: 1) that we offer job skills and ways of creating earning power 2) That the system does not encourage people to stay on it. Your plan seems to do that - the nitty gritty is where these things always get difficult.

And I'm in the same boat with contraceptives and sex education. One of my biggest fears is the rate of breeding among the uneducated vs. educated.

TheLeviathan
08-14-2012, 04:56 PM
It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations..

Or....you could join the sane opinion and hate both! I don't see why people think this has to be an either/or thing.

TheLeviathan
08-14-2012, 04:59 PM
True, but in most states, teachers have established unions to work on their behalf. Not entirely all-encompassing, I understand, but still...

Sometimes unions hold back the ability for people to be paid for their performance. Teaching is a perfect example of this - not that pay for performance is the way to go either, but we damn sure need to better hold people accountable. A lot of bad teachers collecting the same checks the good ones are.

As for your larger point - it's true that the substandard wages in social services hurt. The problem still stands that much of the funding that goes to these programs is horribly wasted - we overly regulate some ways these entities act but then we horribly ignore regulations on many of the cost controls. Which is really a double-pounding to many of the non-profits or social services organizations. The left-wing "blank check" approach to funding forces regulations, but since the "don't shoot the bunny!" argument prevent funding conversations - we over-regulate conduct instead to "ensure" that we're "getting our money's worth". It's horribly circular.

old nurse
08-14-2012, 05:03 PM
It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations..

Or....you could join the sane opinion and hate both! I don't see why people think this has to be an either/or thing.
Far too many people I deal with are binary in their thinking. Many of the posts on this forum sound that way..

Yes you do have a sane opinion.

glunn
08-14-2012, 05:33 PM
It is far easier to hate on the freeloaders than it is to hate on the handouts given to corporations..

Or....you could join the sane opinion and hate both! I don't see why people think this has to be an either/or thing.
Far too many people I deal with are binary in their thinking. Many of the posts on this forum sound that way..

Yes you do have a sane opinion.

Amen to that.

biggentleben
08-14-2012, 06:13 PM
True, but in most states, teachers have established unions to work on their behalf. Not entirely all-encompassing, I understand, but still...

Sometimes unions hold back the ability for people to be paid for their performance. Teaching is a perfect example of this - not that pay for performance is the way to go either, but we damn sure need to better hold people accountable. A lot of bad teachers collecting the same checks the good ones are.

As for your larger point - it's true that the substandard wages in social services hurt. The problem still stands that much of the funding that goes to these programs is horribly wasted - we overly regulate some ways these entities act but then we horribly ignore regulations on many of the cost controls. Which is really a double-pounding to many of the non-profits or social services organizations. The left-wing "blank check" approach to funding forces regulations, but since the "don't shoot the bunny!" argument prevent funding conversations - we over-regulate conduct instead to "ensure" that we're "getting our money's worth". It's horribly circular.

I get the performance/union issue, but it'd be nice to move from one state to another, or even one town to another with consistent idea of what benefits for a job look like. $25K in my area of the world is a passable entry salary, but it'd never suffice in the Twin Cities. Of course, that doesn't state whether health insurance, vacation, etc. are provided in a standard way from one similar job to another. The other issue is that it's not the same on a federal level. What Nebraska's standards are for mental health care are different than South Dakota's or Minnesota's or Iowa's, and the proximity of those states says there are more than a few people who will move from one to the other in their lifetimes that are receiving mental health services. I work for a level of mental health services that exists only in 5 other states in the same level of intensity provided. It's ridiculous how fractured the system is on a national level and why truly helping those receiving services make honest efforts in change toward independent living is so difficult.

Social Security has offered some solid programs, but there's a tremendous fear out there because of what's known as the "cliff" where SSI benefits discontinue alongside income and where a person needs to be to make up for where they were $1 before the benefits discontinued. The amount is right around $1,200 per month of gross pay, nothing amazing, but a decent wage, and there are still some benefits provided at that point (along with medical coverage). Moving to $1,201 makes that salary the only thing they can use. That's just a for instance, and I completely grasp that someone could live decently off of $1200 per month, but it's an example of some of the stuff out there and where the holes in the system really are.

TheLeviathan
08-14-2012, 06:21 PM
Ben - that just speaks again to the desperate need to reform. Reform doesn't have to mean cuts in dollars, but it may mean substantial changes from what people are currently comfortable with.

fatbeer
08-14-2012, 06:55 PM
It's amazing how much the mainstream media is turning on Obama in the last few days. Probably because they know whats in Romneys tax returns and are sick of the Democrats trying to make that a story.

PseudoSABR
08-14-2012, 09:29 PM
Watching Fox News again?

biggentleben
08-14-2012, 10:25 PM
Watching Fox News again?

More like mainlining it, with a slight mix of cocaine to keep him up for more FoxNews.

biggentleben
08-14-2012, 10:29 PM
Ben - that just speaks again to the desperate need to reform. Reform doesn't have to mean cuts in dollars, but it may mean substantial changes from what people are currently comfortable with.

Exactly. What I am uncomfortable with in anything Ryan has ever said or proposed is the drastic cuts in dollars right off the top. Now, I'm not saying that there wouldn't be a lowering in dollars required after some changes in the programs at hand, but making the initial goal money-saving is exactly what has gotten the programs to where they are now as far as enforcement because people go ballistic about a baby living in filth and its mommy not having the money for formula, but they don't worry a bit about how the person who's supposed to keep that baby fed and clothed and the mom just trying to exploit the system separated paid and happy. Those overseeing the programs are the easy cutbacks in a money-saving initiative. They're rewarded in a program-enhancing initiative, which likely would end up saving nearly the same money with better results.

TheLeviathan
08-14-2012, 11:21 PM
They're rewarded in a program-enhancing initiative, which likely would end up saving nearly the same money with better results.

I think this is the way to go - programs need to have a positive spin to them, but we can't shy from a reform simply because we use the term reform. I think more people would agree with that if it was better presented, unfortunately neither side is really working to that outcome.

old nurse
08-15-2012, 12:41 AM
It's amazing how much the mainstream media is turning on Obama in the last few days. Probably because they know whats in Romneys tax returns and are sick of the Democrats trying to make that a story.

Single source news will never get you anywhere. Romney's ideas can not be held up for scrutiny because he proposes nothing concrete. The mainstream media portrays Ryan's plans as what they are. The debate over them is minimal as he is in a minimal position at this point. Romney after stating he was for the Ryan budget plan has backed off. Vagueness is Romney.

fatbeer
08-15-2012, 06:17 AM
It's amazing how much the mainstream media is turning on Obama in the last few days. Probably because they know whats in Romneys tax returns and are sick of the Democrats trying to make that a story.

Single source news will never get you anywhere. Romney's ideas can not be held up for scrutiny because he proposes nothing concrete. The mainstream media portrays Ryan's plans as what they are. The debate over them is minimal as he is in a minimal position at this point. Romney after stating he was for the Ryan budget plan has backed off. Vagueness is Romney.

Are Matt Lauer and Wolf Blitzer a single source? Pro Obama guest are no longer being allowed to get away with spewing talking points and moving on.

old nurse
08-15-2012, 07:36 AM
It's amazing how much the mainstream media is turning on Obama in the last few days. Probably because they know whats in Romneys tax returns and are sick of the Democrats trying to make that a story.

Single source news will never get you anywhere. Romney's ideas can not be held up for scrutiny because he proposes nothing concrete. The mainstream media portrays Ryan's plans as what they are. The debate over them is minimal as he is in a minimal position at this point. Romney after stating he was for the Ryan budget plan has backed off. Vagueness is Romney.

Are Matt Lauer and Wolf Blitzer a single source? Pro Obama guest are no longer being allowed to get away with spewing talking points and moving on.
Your first comment to me is typical of the fox news/talk radio types. Your second comment only proves it. You are at a computer, learn how to use it. The bit about pro Obama. Is anyone who disagrees with you automatically become pro Obama? Are you suddenly the moderator for the board?

diehardtwinsfan
08-15-2012, 12:24 PM
2029

sounds like one more big government republican to me who only cares about small government when a democrat is in office... Vote Gary Johnson.

PseudoSABR
08-15-2012, 02:08 PM
2029

sounds like one more big government republican to me who only cares about small government when a democrat is in office... Vote Gary Johnson.
Right, when it's politically convenient, Ryan has no problem spending money. Though I do believe him that he'd gut government spending with an ax.

PseudoSABR
08-15-2012, 02:10 PM
Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow.

When you call Mitt Romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and I'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC?I wanted to let this sit a couple days. But no where did I call Romney immoral. I just think he shouldn't get a tax break for donating to his church. Fatbeer inferred this from when I said, "I have nothing against religious people, I have something against moral people." Which is just a generalization, and not specifically targeted at anyone, obviously.

fatbeer
08-15-2012, 04:28 PM
2029

sounds like one more big government republican to me who only cares about small government when a democrat is in office... Vote Gary Johnson.

One of the main reasons Gary Johnson didn't vote for a lot of those things is because he wasn't a member of congress. The list of people who have been in congress and voted the way I would like on fiscal matters is limited to pretty much Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, and Bachmann is so flawed in other ways she's not worth discussing. The "Tea Party" was born in spring of 2009 and created a new era of Republicans which Paul Ryan seems to fit in. I have always been on board with "Tea Party" principals, but it took a really safe district or a lot of courage to take a "Tea Party" vote that would not change an outcome prior to 2009.

diehardtwinsfan
08-15-2012, 08:05 PM
2029

sounds like one more big government republican to me who only cares about small government when a democrat is in office... Vote Gary Johnson.

One of the main reasons Gary Johnson didn't vote for a lot of those things is because he wasn't a member of congress. The list of people who have been in congress and voted the way I would like on fiscal matters is limited to pretty much Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, and Bachmann is so flawed in other ways she's not worth discussing. The "Tea Party" was born in spring of 2009 and created a new era of Republicans which Paul Ryan seems to fit in. I have always been on board with "Tea Party" principals, but it took a really safe district or a lot of courage to take a "Tea Party" vote that would not change an outcome prior to 2009.

I voted Ron Paul in teh primary, but he won't be on the ballot. True that Gary Johnson wasn't in Congress, but he does have a track record as the Governor or New Mexico... He used the veto stamp something like 700 times.

twinsnorth49
08-15-2012, 08:50 PM
Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow.

When you call Mitt Romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and I'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC?

Exhibit A as to why your country is getting nowhere.

Brock Beauchamp
08-16-2012, 08:25 AM
when mitt romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on twins daily, i'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow.

when you call mitt romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and i'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of andrea mitchell and msnbc?

It does not give you license to insult another poster. Period. End of discussion.

Have I made myself clear enough yet?

fatbeer
08-16-2012, 08:35 AM
when mitt romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on twins daily, i'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow.

when you call mitt romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and i'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of andrea mitchell and msnbc?

It does not give you license to insult another poster. Period. End of discussion.

Have I made myself clear enough yet?

Nice bold cap locks post to a response to a 4 day old post. There is no personal insult that would be good enough to describe what you just did. WOW. Grow up.

fatbeer
08-16-2012, 08:41 AM
You just insulted me personally in case you don't get it. Sorry for disagreeing with your politics.

fatbeer
08-16-2012, 08:51 AM
By the way since I always get accused of watching fox news, which I don't do all that often because I can agree with myself in my own head, watched MSNBC all morning and haven't been couldn't be more confident about what will happen in 82 days. This was the week to define Paul Ryan as the wrong choice for VP and instead this week has been about reliving every Joe Biden gaffe relentlessly on even the most loyal network. if in 30 hours Paul Ryan still isn't destroyed the Democrats will have lost a must win week going into the conventions. Polls open in 1966 hours!!!

Brock Beauchamp
08-16-2012, 09:35 AM
Okay, you're done. Take a week off the forum. In no way did I "personally insult" you. I warned you politely multiple times and you. just. don't. get. it.

To be clear for the final time, it does not matter what another poster has or has not done to you (or in this case, Mitt Romney). If you have a problem with a post, you report it and let the moderator staff at TD handle the situation. You do not start a flame war, you do not insult the poster (especially when the original "insult" was specious at best and definitely not directed at you personally) and you do not continue arguing with a moderator after being warned.

diehardtwinsfan
08-17-2012, 09:31 AM
I really think the Republicans have set themselves up with another 4 years of Obama. Romney was by far the worst choice of the four that lasted deep into the primaries. His base has no reason to get excited about it. His VP choice is nothing but a bunch or rhetoric, but when it comes to actual results, has been very inconsistent... Ryan, BTW, used to be my Congressman. I don't get the love for the guy. He started talking the talk after Obama got elected, but never bothered to stand up to Bush and his big government ways. Voters still remember that, and handing Romney the President with a Republican congress will not lead to less debt... If history is any indication, it will lead to sizably more.

By refusing to hold Bush accountable in 2004, the Republicans rolled out the red carpet for Obama in 2008, and while I don't think his election will be nearly the landslide it was in 2008, I really think they are handing it to him again in 2012... when people like my parents are voting for Obama, I know Romney is in trouble.

Jocko87
08-19-2012, 07:06 PM
Looks like I picked a bad week to be busy supporting the welfare state. I'm glad Lev was here to appropriately counter most of Pseudo's drivel but since I was personally attacked I'm going to take some time to personally respond, even though it might give the impression that I give half a crap about message board credibility. I made a blunt statement about the stupid semantics thrown about by the left and their (I hope that's proper usage) media, God Bless Lev for taking the time to write the volumes to help explain the nuances. I got what I wanted, which was a pretty good discussion started but unfortunately haven't had the time to participate. I have all the credibility I need in real life and have a plenty of ability to articulate what I believe in. The more I read from you, the more I see that you struggle to have something to believe in.

Getting back to the meat of the discussion, I read this thread 3-4 times and keep coming back to these gems.

What about people that can't or won't care for themselves?


I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out.

These quotes tell me everything I need to know about your viewpoint. Even if these are throwaway lines to everyone else, they speak volumes about your disdain for basic personal responsibility which is the bedrock of a functional capitalistic society. You are correct if you assume that I don't care about the people that won't care for themselves, I do care very deeply about those that can't. The elderly fall into the can't work category, by the way, just to cut off that talking point. They have worked, paid into the plan and earned the benefits. You seem to want to take care of people cradle to the grave, because it makes you feel better. Won't work, eventually the workers will stop working.

I do have a plan for the lazy, it's called the Freedom to Fail Plan (trademark) I personally have known scores of people who don't want to work, who would love to sit home and be taken care of and under your philosophy I guess they won't have to. The problem is that these people have made a basic choice, that government dependency doesn't pay well enough to support the quality of life that they want for themselves and their families. They also enjoy the freedom to succeed that my Freedom to Fail Plan offers.

These statements reflect your basic misunderstanding of human nature. People will rise to the level of what is expected of them. If you create a culture that says it's OK to be dependent on the government, that is what you will get. The left mostly (the right has played along) has worked very hard to remove negative stigma from failure in order to create a dependent class. The government depends on dependency, dependency minimizes accountability. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty. Paul Ryan deserves some legitimate criticism here but at least he is raising the issues to be discussed. The disastrous culture of the ruling class congress can't be changed overnight.

If you can't make the distinction between can't and won't, nothing anyone here says can help you. Feel free to wallow in your liberal academia vacuum.

Brock Beauchamp
08-19-2012, 07:24 PM
Looks like I picked a bad week to be busy supporting the welfare state. I'm glad Lev was here to appropriately counter most of Pseudo's drivel but since I was personally attacked I'm going to take some time to personally respond, even though it might give the impression that I give half a crap about message board credibility. I made a blunt statement about the stupid semantics thrown about by the left and their (I hope that's proper usage) media, God Bless Lev for taking the time to write the volumes to help explain the nuances. I got what I wanted, which was a pretty good discussion started but unfortunately haven't had the time to participate. I have all the credibility I need in real life and have a plenty of ability to articulate what I believe in. The more I read from you, the more I see that you struggle to have something to believe in.

Getting back to the meat of the discussion, I read this thread 3-4 times and keep coming back to these gems.

What about people that can't or won't care for themselves?


I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out.

These quotes tell me everything I need to know about your viewpoint. Even if these are throwaway lines to everyone else, they speak volumes about your disdain for basic personal responsibility which is the bedrock of a functional capitalistic society. You are correct if you assume that I don't care about the people that won't care for themselves, I do care very deeply about those that can't. The elderly fall into the can't work category, by the way, just to cut off that talking point. They have worked, paid into the plan and earned the benefits. You seem to want to take care of people cradle to the grave, because it makes you feel better. Won't work, eventually the workers will stop working.

I do have a plan for the lazy, it's called the Freedom to Fail Plan (trademark) I personally have known scores of people who don't want to work, who would love to sit home and be taken care of and under your philosophy I guess they won't have to. The problem is that these people have made a basic choice, that government dependency doesn't pay well enough to support the quality of life that they want for themselves and their families. They also enjoy the freedom to succeed that my Freedom to Fail Plan offers.

These statements reflect your basic misunderstanding of human nature. People will rise to the level of what is expected of them. If you create a culture that says it's OK to be dependent on the government, that is what you will get. The left mostly (the right has played along) has worked very hard to remove negative stigma from failure in order to create a dependent class. The government depends on dependency, dependency minimizes accountability. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty. Paul Ryan deserves some legitimate criticism here but at least he is raising the issues to be discussed. The disastrous culture of the ruling class congress can't be changed overnight.

If you can't make the distinction between can't and won't, nothing anyone here says can help you. Feel free to wallow in your liberal academia vacuum.

While I agree with your points on the surface, the practicality of "Freedom To Fail" has some pretty awful side effects, the largest being "what do you do with these peoples' children?" Do you doom their children to failure as well? Unless you actually remove the children from their parents' care, you're essentially writing them off. There goes another generation. Rinse, repeat, you have a permanent underclass in 30 years.

This conversation should be far more nuanced than "let the bastards die in the streets". That won't get us anywhere as a nation... Not anywhere we want to go, anyway.

Jocko87
08-19-2012, 11:21 PM
[QUOTE=Jocko87;47407]

While I agree with your points on the surface, the practicality of "Freedom To Fail" has some pretty awful side effects, the largest being "what do you do with these peoples' children?" Do you doom their children to failure as well? Unless you actually remove the children from their parents' care, you're essentially writing them off. There goes another generation. Rinse, repeat, you have a permanent underclass in 30 years.

This conversation should be far more nuanced than "let the bastards die in the streets". That won't get us anywhere as a nation... Not anywhere we want to go, anyway.

I agree 90%. I also agree that it's pretty hard to have this conversation with any amount of nuance on the interweb, but I'll give it a try. What I'm talking about is a very deep cultural problem. Kids aren't being taught the right things- in the homes you mention, the schools, the stupid indoctrination cartoons or pop culture ______. It isn't unheard of that a child from one of these households to be a success though, very often it only takes one person to believe in someone to make a huge impact. If the culture of the nation is the mindset that anyone can live the dream, then more of these children will seize the opportunity. The other part of the equation is that if there are consequences for irresponsible behavior, then irresponsible behavior decreases. As it stands now, people have children because they can get more money for it and then they have their children have children to get a bigger check. That won't work either. We have to get to the point where the safety net is just that, a net. There has to be a stigma about being on the government dole. We have to have people hungry and fighting for their piece of pie. The sad truth is that to get to that place it will be very difficult on some people. I don't really know the best solution to that except that the Ryan plan phases in over 30 years to minimize that effect, cultural change takes awhile.

The 10% I disagree with is the dual assertion that I would be writing these kids off and that the environment would be any different that some of the squalor that kids these days are already raised in. We see success stories still somehow managing to come out of garbage homes. I say that if less of these kids are raised in an environment where "oh well, Gubment check comin" is the attitude more of them will be successful. I maintain that if you give the lazy incentive to be lazy, that's exactly what they will do. Remove that incentive and a surprising amount of them will go to work.

I realize that I may be oversimplifying things but hey, its the internet.

The other thing that I wish people would realize is that almost everyone in this thread is basically a libertarian (other than Psuedo) until it comes to the specific government program that benefits them. Like I said earlier, everybody looking out for #1 is very healthy basic concept. The general problem with that is that nobody wants to cut their own programs, this is probably a big part of why Ryan voted for a lot of the things he did, he has to look out for his district. If the money is being handed out he better get his for his district. This is why I'm a huge fan of term limits. I'm always amazed when I talk to liberals and ask them to explain their point of view. Some of them are pure talking points people like Psuedo but quite a few of them are very much libertarian and just don't know it. Keep the government out of my bedroom? Libertarian, but from the liberal side of things. Cut the military! It's to big, to wasteful etc. ( I happen to agree, I know because I was there) Libertarian, but still a liberal talking point.

People need to understand that the R and the D are not really that different. People on both sides agree that the government is the most ungainly, inefficient, ungodly disaster of an organization the world has ever scene but they are allowing themselves to be divided by minutia to that point where nobody in Washington is ever held accountable. Like I said, dependency minimizes accountability. In general, I support the tea party point of view here. Less government is better in every way. Don't get caught up in the kill the grandmas and put the babies in the streets garbage, nobody wants that, and that is my original point. Everybody wants to take care of those that NEED the help, I just don't want to take care of lazy bastards that take help when they don't need it.

PseudoSABR
08-20-2012, 03:33 PM
Look, it's insulting to characterize people who disagree with your viewpoint as pure talking points. I get beliefs from my experience with people, not from the radio (as one former BYTO poster once accused me). I don't need to drag out my own experience (if you're actually curious, PM me), but I've rarely encountered people who truly need to be cut off and who through mentorship and opportunity don't desire to try hard, to acquire work ethic, to be a productive member of a community. Seriously, even the people with the poorest attitudes can become motivated under the right circumstances. That fact that some people rise from poverty to achieve success is notable speaks to its rarity. People rarely escape poverty without some outside assistance; I think it's absurd to suggest that such people are testaments to the fact the everyone can overcome poverty.

There's something really disconnected in your analysis of why people fail or why people choose to fail if you believe that children aspire to live on welfare. Seriously. No one aspires to live on welfare, especially children. (Of course there are people who see such few options for themselves, that they see welfare as the best path for their life, which is sad, not blame-worthy). I understand your point about normalizing welfare-lifestyle, but your solution (or non-solution) is just lazy. We have the history of civilization to tell us what happens when the poor and incapable are left to their own means. You get the plague. I mean are you actually imagining what urban environments would look like without social welfare? I don't think you're following your thought experiment to any arduous end; you somehow assume that pain and misery of poverty-stricken children will suddenly result in them trying harder at their underfunded and poorly-instructed classes, that some how seeing their parents and themselves go without food and healthcare will teach them the value of some good ole fashion work ethic. Again, imagine what wide-spread poverty looks like. There are places in the world and instances throughout history where you can see the ends of your philosophy.

Despite how you try to characterize my point of view, I'm not some dumb flower-kissing hippy. I don't want people to mooch, and I understand their tendency to do so. I think we can create efficacious welfare to work programs if we have 1) the funding 2) the policy 3) the jobs on the otherside.

If simple laziness were indeed the root of why people grow dependent on welfare we'd see jobs going unfilled and a premium on motivated workers, which would result in higher wages. But of course, that's not the case. At the base of your assumption is that there are indeed enough jobs to employ all of the people who are welfare which is a total and obvious falsehood.

Another silly assertion that libertarians like to proffer is that if we simply cut taxes on businesses, we'd suddenly have enough jobs to employ everyone. This is something I've asserted before, but we could cut taxes to zero and businesses would still not come to America for it's low-skilled labor. Our standard of living and hence our labor is far too expensive to compete in free world market. It will always be cheaper and more profitable to build a plant in Indonesia because their labor is cheaper (both because of economy there and the lack of civil rights and worker rights).

What is more slippery is how do you decide who needs help legitimately and who does not? I'm pretty sure that welfare programs try to do this, but with what success, I'm not sure. Even if we can decide who the illegitimate needy are, what happens to such people? Pretty soon you're breeding criminals, because desperate people do desperate things. I agree there's illegitimate needy people, but I think they are such a small percentage, that we can regard such people as sunk cost. A broken dish in a restaurant, to run out a dehumanizing metaphor. Any effective welfare-to-work program will involve fraud, and needs to guard itself against defiant people, but we can't simply get rid of the programs because they might be abused.

We all agree let's help people who need it and avoid creating a system that breeds ineffectual citizens. We all agree with that. But what I am not seeing from you is ideas of how welfare-to-work might operate. In fact I'm seeing zero ideas from you, just in your words, libertarian talking points. Which strikes me as lazy. (To Levi's credit, he's willing to get nuts and bolts about how to fix it, and what we find is that we often agree at what kind of welfare mechanism we'd like to see).

The libertarian policy is no policy. Again, which is damn lazy. There's hard work to do on social welfare, but your philosophy contributes zero to real-world workable solutions. You stand in the way. What I find so offensive is that you also seem so lazy in your analysis of why people fail and how people become lazy and what the day-to-day living on welfare is really like. I don't think you've spent a lot of time thinking about the roots of failure, when and where it happens, the psychology of it; much less, how to break people out of the attitudes of failure.

Again, no one wants to simply give a man a fish, we want to teach a man to fish; but the process of teaching/training is complicated, especially in terms of the unwilling or the broken, but it's totally within our capacity to design such policy and to people it with individuals who can get the job done. We need smart, tough policy. Not railing against the idea of public policy (government) in general.

PseudoSABR
08-20-2012, 03:50 PM
I normally don't really care for Sully, but I think his recent take on Paul Ryan (and libertarianism) might coincide with some poster's here.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-vs-fiscal-conservatism.html
A blip:

I don't share some Obama-supporters' contempt for Paul Ryan. That's in part because he comes across as a sincere, decent, fine fellow - whose Randian worldview has produced a reformist zeal known most intimately to an adolescent male. Indeed, he reminds me most of all of myself in my teens - dreaming of how to cut government in half, relishing schemes to slash taxes and slash spending and unleash revolutionary growth which, in itself, would render all other problems more manageable. There is no libertarian quite as convinced as a teenage libertarian. And it's the adolescent conviction of Ryan that shines so brightly.

diehardtwinsfan
08-20-2012, 03:52 PM
While I agree with your points on the surface, the practicality of "Freedom To Fail" has some pretty awful side effects, the largest being "what do you do with these peoples' children?" Do you doom their children to failure as well? Unless you actually remove the children from their parents' care, you're essentially writing them off. There goes another generation. Rinse, repeat, you have a permanent underclass in 30 years.

This conversation should be far more nuanced than "let the bastards die in the streets". That won't get us anywhere as a nation... Not anywhere we want to go, anyway.


Brock, you already have a permanent underclass, and as long as the economic setup is allowed to continue as it does, it will only continue to grow. The welfare system rewards mistakes, so there's nothing preventing others from continuing to make them and no incentive to get out of the situation. Inflation is a different side of things in that it slowly erodes away the wealth of all of us (except those at the very top who have access to the money before it's value is destroyed)... That punishes people on fixed incomes and slowly moves more and more people into these safety nets where they have no else to go.

I get the "what about the children" argument up to a point, but the simple fact is that since these programs have been put into place, there are more children that need them now. There will always be poverty, and there will always be suffering. Thinking that the government can provide some magic pill to fix all of that is everyone's first mistake. The other problem, is that somewhere you have to give the government control of parenting decisions. Is that really a line people are willing to cross? This is the same one giving the finger to the first ammendment telling religious organizations they ahve to do something that's against their convictions. What would stop them from telling you as parents that you cannot pass on your own moral views to your children?

diehardtwinsfan
08-20-2012, 03:53 PM
I normally don't really care for Sully, but I think his recent take on Paul Ryan (and libertarianism) might coincide with some poster's here.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-vs-fiscal-conservatism.html
A blip:

I don't share some Obama-supporters' contempt for Paul Ryan. That's in part because he comes across as a sincere, decent, fine fellow - whose Randian worldview has produced a reformist zeal known most intimately to an adolescent male. Indeed, he reminds me most of all of myself in my teens - dreaming of how to cut government in half, relishing schemes to slash taxes and slash spending and unleash revolutionary growth which, in itself, would render all other problems more manageable. There is no libertarian quite as convinced as a teenage libertarian. And it's the adolescent conviction of Ryan that shines so brightly.


The problem from this libertarian has nothing to do with his zeal, maturity, dreams, or whatever... It's because in practice, Ryan is no fiscal conservative.

TheLeviathan
08-20-2012, 04:48 PM
You stand in the way.....

Again, no one wants to simply give a man a fish, we want to teach a man to fish; but the process of teaching/training is complicated, especially in terms of the unwilling or the broken, but it's totally within our capacity to design such policy and to people it with individuals who can get the job done. We need smart, tough policy. Not railing against the idea of public policy (government) in general. Get off your ass and help come up with something.

You know, I would've responded to your whole post - but this just rubs me wrong. I respect your opinion Psuedo, but seriously, screw this smug nonsense. You know what really stands in the way of smart policy and fixing this process? The left's Mrs. Lovejoy impression every damn time this conversation comes up. That we're going to "dump" people "in the streets" and duct tape, spit, starvation, and other BS. This claptrap is what stops the conversation from ever happening in the first place. Hell, in this little space of the interweb your shrill nonsense derailed the conversation and it is the perfect microcosm of the national debate. Someone says "Medicaid reform" and the left-wing can't wait to start running ads about the elderly being shoved off cliffs by fat-cats. I could give similar examples of college financial aid, school funding, social security, and just about any other welfare program.

You want a smart conversation? Put down the damn bunny and the gun you have to it's head and let's talk. You and other of your political persuasion are what is stopping this from happening by your own version of "oh so you want the terrorists to win?" response to a perfectly pertinent question. (Iraq war, just for the record) As a libertarian I can look you in the eye and honestly say I have the same intentions. What you can't do in return is honestly say you mean to discuss them. The drivel you tried to pass as arguments in this thread alone show your real intent.

I, and I think most other libertarians at least, are ready for that conversation. It's you and the rest of the Lovejoys that have to back off so we can have it.

diehardtwinsfan
08-20-2012, 05:03 PM
Look, it's insulting to characterize people who disagree with your viewpoint as pure talking points. I get beliefs from my experience with people, not from the radio (as one former BYTO poster once accused me). I don't need to drag out my own experience (if you're actually curious, PM me), but I've rarely encountered people who truly need to be cut off and who through mentorship and opportunity don't desire to try hard, to acquire work ethic, to be a productive member of a community. Seriously, even the people with the poorest attitudes can become motivated under the right circumstances. That fact that some people rise from poverty to achieve success is notable speaks to its rarity. People rarely escape poverty without some outside assistance; I think it's absurd to suggest that such people are testaments to the fact the everyone can overcome poverty.


I'm not here to insulte you or characterize you as something you are not, but I'll be real honest in that I've seen enough of the bad sides of society to say that relying on the goodness of humanity to escape poverty is absurd. I'm a landlord and own several rental properties, all of which tend to cater towards lower income individuals. I don't accept government subsidies because by and large for the most part, those individules are some of the most entitled-self centered people I have ever met. In my 8 years of doing this, I've come across 1 person who I would consider to be a success story amongst many failures. People don't escape poverty without outside assistance... with the exception of a lucky fuew, they don't escape it. Not anymore at least. There's a system in place today that wasn't there 100 years ago that virtually ensures that poverty isn't going anywhere.



There's something really disconnected in your analysis of why people fail or why people choose to fail if you believe that children aspire to live on welfare. Seriously. No one aspires to live on welfare, especially children. (Of course there are people who see such few options for themselves, that they see welfare as the best path for their life, which is sad, not blame-worthy). I understand your point about normalizing welfare-lifestyle, but you're solution (or non-solution) is just lazy. We have the history of civilization to tell us what happens when the poor and incapable are left to their own means. You get the plague. I mean are you actually imagining what urban environments would look like without social welfare? I don't think you're following your thought experiment to any arduous end; you somehow assume that pain and misery of poverty-stricken children will suddenly result in them trying harder at their underfunded and poorly-instructed classes, that some how seeing their parents and themselves go without food and healthcare will teach them the value of some good ole fashion work ethic. Again, imagine what wide-spread poverty looks like. There are places in the world and instances throughout history where you can see the ends of your philosophy.

You are right, no one aspires to be on welfare, yet here we are with an ever growing population, and the more social programs we add, the more welfare grows. Why is that? You've challenged libertarians on their "do nothing" solution as lazy. I ask you, how is it that your solution isn't any more lazy when all you are doing is throwing money at a problem which in turn actually makes it worse?

Likewise, your view on history is skewed. Engraved on the statue of liberty are the following words: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." This was the mantra in this country up until the Great Depression, and it worked for the first 150 years of this country's existence. There was no welfare prior to that and this country did just fine. It wasn't until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the subsequent Great Depression which it engineered that required these social programs, and instead of dealing with the cause of this poverty, we allowed the corruption to continue. That system is designed to slowly suck money out of the general economy and place it into the hands of a few, and this is exactly where the US is going. You are correct to task conservatives on this issue, as they want to deal with the welfare without fixing the problem at the top, but this is one thing the libertarians have figured out. The problem is here because the system as a whole is stacks the deck against everyone else.







Despite how you try to characterize my point of view, I'm not some dumb flower-kissing hippy. I don't want people to mooch, and I understand their tendency to do so. I think we can create efficacious welfare to work programs if we have 1) the funding 2) the policy 3) the jobs on the otherside.

History says otherwise my friend. I don't think you are a dumb flower-kissing hippy, but there is NO way to create these welfare to work programs. The problem economically is that the government doesn't produce anything. It sucks money out of the economy that the economy would purpose on it's own. Likewise the jobs it creates don't produce anything either, adding another disadvantage. Less goods are being produced. Then there's the human nature side of things, in which people figure out how to game the system, and that happens both with the recipients of the aid along with the corrupt government officials that use the positions to reward people for things like campaign help. How else does a guy Michael D. Brown get put in charge of Emergency Preparedness and it's 150k salary plus benefits without a shred of actual experience doing these things?





If simple laziness were indeed the root of why people grow dependent on welfare we'd see jobs going unfilled and a premium on motivated workers, which would result in higher wages. But of course, that's not the case. At the base of your assumption is that there are indeed enough jobs to employ all of the people who are welfare which is a total and obvious falsehood.

I think the 16 million undocumented workers in this country might have something to do with some of this. I can guarantee you those individuals come from poorer backgrounds than the average welfare recipient and are willing to make far more sacrifices to achieve the American dream.

diehardtwinsfan
08-20-2012, 05:04 PM
Another silly assertion that libertarians like to proffer is that if we simply cut taxes on businesses, we'd suddenly have enough jobs to employ everyone. This is something I've asserted before, but we could cut taxes to zero and businesses would still not come to America for it's low-skilled labor. Our standard of living and hence our labor is far too expensive to compete in free world market. It will always be cheaper and more profitable to build a plant in Indonesia because their labor is cheaper (both because of economy there and the lack of civil rights and worker rights).

Now it's your turn to mis-characterize a position. Taxes need to be cut across the board, and taxing businesses vs. consumers does nothing but double taxes. Taxes placed on businesses get factored into prices, and taxes placed on consumers affect purchasing power, and all of that has a direct affect on the cost of labor. There are a number of libertarian tax proposals which would immediately result in lower costs and better standards of living (such as Ron Paul's plan which achieves it through gutting the government or the Fair Tax). While it may be always cheaper to build there, when the cost of living drops here, American labor will find itself in a better competitive spot.







What is more slippery is how do you decide who needs help legitimately and who does not? I'm pretty sure that welfare programs try to do this, but with what success, I'm not sure. Even if we can decide who the illegitimate needy are, what happens to such people? Pretty soon you're breeding criminals, because desperate people do desperate things. I agree there's illegitimate needy people, but I think they are such a small percentage, that we can regard such people as sunk cost. A broken dish in a restaurant, to run out a dehumanizing metaphor. Any effective welfare-to-work program will involve fraud, and needs to guard itself against defiant people, but we can't simply get rid of the programs because they might be abused.


Judging by my personal observances of the system, I'd say it's not very successful at all. And likewise, your point about breeding criminals is also offbase. Again, since the creation of these safety net programs, what has happened to crime in this country? It hasn't dropped. This is because the safety net deals with the symptoms of the problems and not the problem itself. No one will touch the fact that their money is devalued every single day, which is what is creating the poverty and creating the crime. As I said earlier, there will always be poverty, and there will always be crime. The foolish thing though is believing that the government can somehow erradicate it by adding safety nets. It cannot. And since the inception of these safetynets, crime has increased and poverty has increased. Why is that?





We all agree let's help people who need it and avoid creating a system that breeds ineffectual citizens. We all agree with that. But what I am not seeing from you is ideas of how welfare-to-work might operate. In fact I'm seeing zero ideas from you, just in your words, libertarian talking points. Which strikes me as lazy. (To Levi's credit, he's willing to get nuts and bolts about how to fix it, and what we find is that we often agree at what kind of welfare mechanism we'd like to see).


I know you aren't directing this post at me b/c I've stayed out of this largely, but there's far more than libertarian talking points here. There's a root cause that welfare-to-work does not address.





The libertarian policy is no policy. Again, which is damn lazy. There's hard work to do on social welfare, but you're philosophy contributes zero to real-world workable solutions. You stand in the way. What I find so offensive is that you also seem so lazy in your analysis of why people fail and how people become lazy and what the day-to-day living on welfare is really like. I don't think you've spent a lot of time thinking about the roots of failure, when and where it happens, the psychology of it; much less, how to break people out of the attitudes of failure.

I'm not sure you've spent a lot of time thinking about the roots of failure either. You sound just like a lazy Republican who says nothing but "trickledown trickledown" and ignores the fact that as implemented it's trickled up... Both programs quitely ignore the greater problems and both are nothing but a means to placate the bases of two parties equally bent on destroying this country.





Again, no one wants to simply give a man a fish, we want to teach a man to fish; but the process of teaching/training is complicated, especially in terms of the unwilling or the broken, but it's totally within our capacity to design such policy and to people it with individuals who can get the job done. We need smart, tough policy. Not railing against the idea of public policy (government) in general. Get off your ass and help come up with something.

No, it's not. Government is not the solution, and it only creates more problems. Policy won't fix this. Undoing existing policy will.

PseudoSABR
08-20-2012, 05:15 PM
You stand in the way.....

Again, no one wants to simply give a man a fish, we want to teach a man to fish; but the process of teaching/training is complicated, especially in terms of the unwilling or the broken, but it's totally within our capacity to design such policy and to people it with individuals who can get the job done. We need smart, tough policy. Not railing against the idea of public policy (government) in general. Get off your ass and help come up with something.

You know, I would've responded to your whole post - but this just rubs me wrong. I respect your opinion Psuedo, but seriously, screw this smug nonsense. You know what really stands in the way of smart policy and fixing this process? The left's Mrs. Lovejoy impression every damn time this conversation comes up. That we're going to "dump" people "in the streets" and duct tape, spit, starvation, and other BS. This claptrap is what stops the conversation from ever happening in the first place. Hell, in this little space of the interweb your shrill nonsense derailed the conversation and it is the perfect microcosm of the national debate. Someone says "Medicaid reform" and the left-wing can't wait to start running ads about the elderly being shoved off cliffs by fat-cats. I could give similar examples of college financial aid, school funding, social security, and just about any other welfare program.

You want a smart conversation? Put down the damn bunny and the gun you have to it's head and let's talk. You and other of your political persuasion are what is stopping this from happening by your own version of "oh so you want the terrorists to win?" response to a perfectly pertinent question. (Iraq war, just for the record) As a libertarian I can look you in the eye and honestly say I have the same intentions. What you can't do in return is honestly say you mean to discuss them. The drivel you tried to pass as arguments in this thread alone show your real intent.

I, and I think most other libertarians at least, are ready for that conversation. It's you and the rest of the Lovejoys that have to back off so we can have it.Look, I am absolutely trying to rub Jocko the wrong way, not you--that's where the tone is coming from. I am being smug (and I do take some pleasure in the irony of 'laziness' motif). If you want to bring some integrity to the conversation why don't you practice it? Sorry, if I don't take your offense seriously, when you whip smugness right back at me and let Jocko's smugness slide. Lovejoys? Drivel? I mean, come on, dude.

PseudoSABR
08-20-2012, 05:29 PM
diehard, thanks for being thoughtful and thorough in responding, but it will take me a couple of days to retort.

diehardtwinsfan
08-20-2012, 05:46 PM
diehard, thanks for being thoughtful and thorough in responding, but it will take me a couple of days to retort.

No problem. I have the luxury of teaching an online class this week with long labs :)

TheLeviathan
08-20-2012, 06:04 PM
Take offense Pseudo and clean up your retorts. Your "dead in the street" nonsense you should be ashamed of. Its beneath you. To then call out someone else's committment to real solutions after that pathetic nonsense is embarrassing. You know full well I dont play sides. My retort to jocko was coming - you just jumped the priority list with your high and mighty crap after twice sounding like a smug, shallow alarmist.

PseudoSABR
08-20-2012, 06:23 PM
Take offense Pseudo and clean up your retorts. Your "dead in the street" nonsense you should be ashamed of.I'm not the only one using that phrase. Obviously, there's hyperbole on all sides. But I don't see much in the terms of counter pointing that harsh assessment.

Well, what would you do about the illegitimately needy? Like I said, I'm not seeing much to combat the hyperbole from the libertarian side.

(FWIW, I took out the last line of my post.)

TheLeviathan
08-20-2012, 09:08 PM
I'm not the only one using that phrase. Obviously, there's hyperbole on all sides. But I don't see much in the terms of counter pointing that harsh assessment.

Well, what would you do about the illegitimately needy? Like I said, I'm not seeing much to combat the hyperbole from the libertarian side.

(FWIW, I took out the last line of my post.)

Did ya miss RP and I? You were welcome to weigh in, instead the bulk of your remarks have been moral high-horse crap about people dying in the streets. Like I said this reflects the national conversation. Well meaning people get nowhere because yhou hyperventilate about nonsense to take false moral superiority. That smug grandstanding not only contributes nothing it derails the conversation.

PseudoSABR
08-21-2012, 10:46 AM
I'm not the only one using that phrase. Obviously, there's hyperbole on all sides. But I don't see much in the terms of counter pointing that harsh assessment.

Well, what would you do about the illegitimately needy? Like I said, I'm not seeing much to combat the hyperbole from the libertarian side.

(FWIW, I took out the last line of my post.)

Did ya miss RP and I? You were welcome to weigh in, instead the bulk of your remarks have been moral high-horse crap about people dying in the streets. Like I said this reflects the national conversation. Well meaning people get nowhere because yhou hyperventilate about nonsense to take false moral superiority. That smug grandstanding not only contributes nothing it derails the conversation.You're disingenuously mischaracterizing my position, and I don't really get why. Reread my post, there's nothing about people in the streets. But whatever. Diehard had no problem taking my post seriously.

TheLeviathan
08-21-2012, 12:20 PM
Dont remember your own posts from page 2 and 3? Not only am I not mischaracterizing......I'm quoting!!!! This is a really pathetic attempt Psuedo.

PseudoSABR
08-21-2012, 12:30 PM
Dont remember your own posts from page 2 and 3? Not only am I not mischaracterizing......I'm quoting!!!! This is a really pathetic attempt Psuedo.The posts I wrote a week ago? Oh right. I admitted to that hyperbole, but the most recent exchange of posts have (I assumed) been about my post yesterday, where I tried to be thoughtful and resisted hyperbole, even if I was snarky. I'm not stopping discourse from happening, in fact, another poster took the time to respond to each of my points.You've spent three or four posts trying to shame me; I'd say it's you who's being pathetic. What's your angle?

TheLeviathan
08-21-2012, 11:58 PM
Dont remember your own posts from page 2 and 3? Not only am I not mischaracterizing......I'm quoting!!!! This is a really pathetic attempt Psuedo.The posts I wrote a week ago? Oh right. I admitted to that hyperbole, but the most recent exchange of posts have (I assumed) been about my post yesterday, where I tried to be thoughtful and resisted hyperbole, even if I was snarky. I'm not stopping discourse from happening, in fact, another poster took the time to respond to each of my points.You've spent three or four posts trying to shame me; I'd say it's you who's being pathetic. What's your angle?

My posts generated the admission. My angle was to call you out for the pompous fallacy of belittling jocko when, to that point, your contributions had bee slimy moral high-horse grandstanding with an insulting string of hyperbole. Pot calling the kettle black. Don't present yourself as some moral beacon with nonsense like that. I don't hate the welfare system in the name of tax breaks or hating the lazy. I want it gone because it is eating away at the middle class. You have no moral highground and should be ashamed for the insulting manner in which you tried to present that you did. Carry on with diehard to your hearts content.

PseudoSABR
08-22-2012, 01:15 AM
Dont remember your own posts from page 2 and 3? Not only am I not mischaracterizing......I'm quoting!!!! This is a really pathetic attempt Psuedo.The posts I wrote a week ago? Oh right. I admitted to that hyperbole, but the most recent exchange of posts have (I assumed) been about my post yesterday, where I tried to be thoughtful and resisted hyperbole, even if I was snarky. I'm not stopping discourse from happening, in fact, another poster took the time to respond to each of my points.You've spent three or four posts trying to shame me; I'd say it's you who's being pathetic. What's your angle?

My posts generated the admission. My angle was to call you out for the pompous fallacy of belittling jocko when, to that point, your contributions had bee slimy moral high-horse grandstanding with an insulting string of hyperbole. Pot calling the kettle black. Don't present yourself as some moral beacon with nonsense like that. I don't hate the welfare system in the name of tax breaks or hating the lazy. I want it gone because it is eating away at the middle class. You have no moral highground and should be ashamed for the insulting manner in which you tried to present that you did. Carry on with diehard to your hearts content.Pot calling the kettle black. Pot calling the kettle black. Say it enough times, one becomes exempt I guess.

Apologies to everyone witnessing this thread, for the current petty exchange. I think we're all better than it.

glunn
08-22-2012, 01:42 AM
Dont remember your own posts from page 2 and 3? Not only am I not mischaracterizing......I'm quoting!!!! This is a really pathetic attempt Psuedo.The posts I wrote a week ago? Oh right. I admitted to that hyperbole, but the most recent exchange of posts have (I assumed) been about my post yesterday, where I tried to be thoughtful and resisted hyperbole, even if I was snarky. I'm not stopping discourse from happening, in fact, another poster took the time to respond to each of my points.You've spent three or four posts trying to shame me; I'd say it's you who's being pathetic. What's your angle?

My posts generated the admission. My angle was to call you out for the pompous fallacy of belittling jocko when, to that point, your contributions had bee slimy moral high-horse grandstanding with an insulting string of hyperbole. Pot calling the kettle black. Don't present yourself as some moral beacon with nonsense like that. I don't hate the welfare system in the name of tax breaks or hating the lazy. I want it gone because it is eating away at the middle class. You have no moral highground and should be ashamed for the insulting manner in which you tried to present that you did. Carry on with diehard to your hearts content.

Gentlemen, please remember that we are all patriots who want a better country. We may greatly disagree about how to get there, but we will get there faster if we can find common ground.

It seems to me that there is an obvious way to sort out the lazy from the motivated, which would be to make sure that there are enough jobs for everyone. It sickens me to work 50+ hours a week while unemployed people watch Oprah. It seems to me that if they are going to collect government benefits, then they should be working. There is plenty of work that needs to be done in this country that would benefit our people and our economy. Our roads, bridges and other infrastructure has been neglected. We could also use more teachers and teachers aides. There are also lots of fairly high quality jobs that are going unfilled because there are not enough Americans with the training to fill them. This is where government needs to come in and spend money for the long term benefit of everyone, while putting a lot of people back to work. Also, there are a lot of jobs filled by illegal immigrants that could be filled by citizens if we had better mechanisms for requiring genuine slackers to take such jobs, and to this end, a more decent minimum wage would also help.

To me, the irony of this debate is that we taxpayers are going to pay for our less fortunate citizens one way or another. We can cut their Medicare and their Medicaid but that won't keep them out of the emergency rooms. We can give their kids crappy educations, but then we get to pay $35,000+ per year per prisoner to keep them in prison later. And we can starve them, but what's it going to feel like and look like around the world when the United States is allowing people to starve.

I would like to try to weed out the slackers, by offering them jobs and cutting their benefits if they don't at least try to work, but I would also like to do a lot more than we do now in training and employing the non-slackers. Basically, I would like EVERYONE to work at least 30 hours per week, except people who are disabled from doing so. And I think that with the right policies, we could find jobs for the vast majority of people who are now unemployed.

I think that the best solution might come if we can put aside party and philosophy and try to find ways to spend our tax dollars more wisely. It's no secret that governments at all levels waste many billions of dollars per year, and that there are programs that overlap and that are inefficient. It's also no secret that tax rates for high earners are very low compared with historical rates and that the top 1% has been thriving. If only the liberals could put social programs on the table and the conservatives could put tax rates (and the defense budget) on the table, then I think that we could still get out of this mess. On the other hand, our system seems to broken to allow for compromise, and the special interests are calling most of the shots, no matter who we elect. And with Citizen's United, this will likely get worse before finally there is a backlash and we clamp down on the corruption that comes from politicians doing things that they know are wrong in order to get money to get re-elected.

Canada, anyone?

P.S. - can we at least all agree that the billions spent on the drug war and on imprisoning users is a total waste?

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 07:08 AM
P.S. - can we at least all agree that the billions spent on the drug war and on imprisoning users is a total waste?

No argument here.

Ultima Ratio
08-22-2012, 01:37 PM
P.S. - can we at least all agree that the billions spent on the drug war and on imprisoning users is a total waste?

No argument here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G4HxrVx20A

TheLeviathan
08-22-2012, 02:04 PM
If only the liberals could put social programs on the table and the conservatives could put tax rates (and the defense budget) on the table, then I think that we could still get out of this mess. On the other hand, our system seems to broken to allow for compromise

I think that's the problem glunn - when there is compromise it is "We'll give more social programs if you give more on tax rates." We keep moving in the wrong direction in both ways rather than thinking practically.

I will say this, if we could do something like you're talking about to cut benefits if people aren't working a certain amount it will do two thing - it will incentivize those that are working to continue and it will push those that would slack if allowed to keep at it. It has to come with an increase in taxes and a closing of loopholes, but what worries me is that almost every left-wing driven policy in this country right now is actually making matters worse (long-term) for not only the lowest rungs (in the name of short term gains), but also for the entire middle class.

diehardtwinsfan
08-22-2012, 02:29 PM
conservatives need to put these wars on the table too. 1/3 of the budget goes towards that type of stuff. We cannot pretend to want to scale back government and social welfare while ignoring this obvious expense... it doesn't work...

and on drugs, I'm with you there too. Instead of spending billions to fight it (unsuccessfully I'd add), why not legalize it and tax it?

Jocko87
08-22-2012, 07:32 PM
Look, I am absolutely trying to rub Jocko the wrong way, not you--that's where the tone is coming from. I am being smug (and I do take some pleasure in the irony of 'laziness' motif). If you want to bring some integrity to the conversation why don't you practice it? Sorry, if I don't take your offense seriously, when you whip smugness right back at me and let Jocko's smugness slide. Lovejoys? Drivel? I mean, come on, dude.

Is there an emoticon or something for smugness? This is the internet, everybody sounds smug to me. Please don't bother trying to rub me the wrong way, it seems you are just a little bit too confident in your ability to affect somebody through a message board. I've played this game before, the fact that you are resorting to these tactics illustrates the weakness of your argument. I don't have alot of patience for debating with anger-baiters.

Do I realize that I am talking in very grand terms? Of course I do. One of the problems as I see it is that people tend to want to continue to band aid problems because they don't realize how deeply ingrained into our culture that this problem is. Love him or hate him, but Rush Limbaugh makes a very effective argument when he talks about how the democratic party NEEDS a permanent underclass in order to survive. This is reflected in by the silly people in the streets scare tactics. I would obviously add republicans as guilty parties here but to a lesser degree. Politicians in general have become vote buying scum and have transformed the public into a highly dependent group. They are at least united on this one front and they need us to be divided so they can maintain their hold on the power and control of money. That's a big part of the problem with welfare and I will say it again and again, dependency reduces accountability.

I don't understand how you can say that nobody aspires to be on welfare. Isn't one of the big liberal talking points "no corporate welfare"? What do you think they do? If an opportunity for government money comes, they are all over it just like a sad number of individuals will. It is in our culture that this is acceptable and that is the biggest obstacle that we face. I realize that I said lazy in my post earlier but you and everybody else knows I was illustrating a point. What I didn't mention is that I could see me being one of those people. Not now, unless you can get the benefits up to a level that you would be comfortable with, but had a few things worked out differently it would have been pretty easy to go down that road. I don't necessarily blame people who are on welfare even though I do believe many do seek it out. Why are we advertising our welfare programs at the Mexican border? Why is there an ad every commercial break about something that the government will provide? Because we are training people to look to government for everything. Dups like you are more than happy to sing along while I see a problem and would like to address the real issues. I'm not laying out policy here, all I'm saying is that a change of attitude is needed. We need to be trying to get people off welfare, our current administration is doing the opposite.

Jocko87
08-22-2012, 08:09 PM
Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".


I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train.

Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

TheLeviathan
08-22-2012, 08:49 PM
Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

I'm not sure what you read in Brock's remark - but I don't think you're disagreeing with him at all. Or maybe I read his post wrong.

I think both sides can agree that funneling money into job skills is the way to go. The problem is that the left wants to pull that money from the tax base rather than from the existing expenditure.

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 06:28 AM
Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".


I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train.

Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

I think you misunderstand my point. Say you are on welfare, getting $300 a week. You are offered a job at McDonald's making $300 a week. At that point, you have ZERO incentive to go to work. Why would you?

But what if the government said "take that job at McDonald's and we'll pay you $150 a week for six months. After that, we'll pay you $75 a week for another six months. At which point, you become ineligible for welfare for a year (because you'd have unemployment insurance to fall back on should you lose your job). The system is incentivizing work instead of staying on the government dole. People live a little better and gain work experience (even if it's ****ty work). The system gains relief while the tax system sees a minor uptick. It's not a perfect system but it's a system that looks at the REAL situation instead of trying to tell people "work harder, you lazy ass" or just throwing money at the problem in hopes it will sort itself out.

Because you can't just cut people off. Not if they have children. And if you incentivize having children, that only encourages poor people to go have more kids. That's a losing situation for everybody. The only thing you can do in return is to hand out as many contraceptives and birth control pills as you can, give people a reason to go back to work, and cross your fingers that making more money will outweigh being a lazy bastard.

And while people are on welfare, I'm all for supporting as much education as possible. You have to do as much as you can to deter sloth and breeding, even if it costs you more in the short-term. Because no matter how much education costs the system, it's a hell of a lot less than raising two kids for 18 years.

Jocko87
08-23-2012, 05:36 PM
Levi, what do you think of "pay to work" programs? I think that's a step in the right direction. Someone on welfare gets a job that pays them roughly the same amount they make on welfare. They continue to receive, say, 50% of their welfare check for six months, at which point it drops to 25% with the expectation that they are making more money at their job. You can slide the timelines around all you like, I'm not really interested in debating that point. I just think it gives people a REAL incentive to go back to work and become a productive member of society instead of leeching from the system forever. It's the type of common sense approach to this problem that neither side seems very interesting in pursuing.

Oh, and we really need to hand out as many free contraceptives and birth control programs as possible to welfare recipients. If they want to avoid having children, we need to encourage that, not discourage it. Those two things could go a long way toward making social programs more solvent and funding wasn't even "cut" so much as "moved around".


I like ideas like this except that it is to easy to fall into a similar trap that we are in now. It would be a fairly easy system to abuse I would think. Don't like your boss? Just quit and go back work for the government. I can also easily the government getting into make work programs to support these plans. Generally we want less people working for the government overall. I would prefer something along the lines of pay to train type programs. We are going to have government involvement anyway so maybe tie the welfare money to a training program and looking for work requirements? Training for trades particularly. There are jobs available for skilled tradesmen but our recent overemphasis on sending everybody to college has really thinned this workforce. I just had my electrician stop by to get paid and he is still looking for help. Hasn't been able to find anybody with even a minimum qualification set that he could train.

Of course a program like this ripe for abuse as well, why would anyone pay for school when the government will pay if you wait for welfare? That is the nature of all of these programs but at least in a pay for training atmosphere you can have an expectation of getting out and not coming back.

I think you misunderstand my point. Say you are on welfare, getting $300 a week. You are offered a job at McDonald's making $300 a week. At that point, you have ZERO incentive to go to work. Why would you?

But what if the government said "take that job at McDonald's and we'll pay you $150 a week for six months. After that, we'll pay you $75 a week for another six months. At which point, you become ineligible for welfare for a year (because you'd have unemployment insurance to fall back on should you lose your job). The system is incentivizing work instead of staying on the government dole. People live a little better and gain work experience (even if it's ****ty work). The system gains relief while the tax system sees a minor uptick. It's not a perfect system but it's a system that looks at the REAL situation instead of trying to tell people "work harder, you lazy ass" or just throwing money at the problem in hopes it will sort itself out.

Because you can't just cut people off. Not if they have children. And if you incentivize having children, that only encourages poor people to go have more kids. That's a losing situation for everybody. The only thing you can do in return is to hand out as many contraceptives and birth control pills as you can, give people a reason to go back to work, and cross your fingers that making more money will outweigh being a lazy bastard.

And while people are on welfare, I'm all for supporting as much education as possible. You have to do as much as you can to deter sloth and breeding, even if it costs you more in the short-term. Because no matter how much education costs the system, it's a hell of a lot less than raising two kids for 18 years.

I agree with you on the premise and I wish more or this kind of thinking went on in Washington. I think I just assumed you meant working for the government. I can see how something like that could work and be part of an actual solution. My thought was very similar except that I was thinking of using some sort of training rather than the work. Maybe while someone is on welfare they could be in welding school or something similar. You could add some job search requirements at the end to tie things up. I did all of my schooling while working more than full time so I know how hard it is to find time for learning a new skill. If I had kids or a relative to take care of I don't know if I could have found the time. Obviously not everybody would be a good fit for this but I think a significant number of people would see it as an opportunity. You can do really well as a welder, plumber or electrician and these jobs are generally available.

If somebody is already a welder, maybe they are a better fit in your plan. The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

diehardtwinsfan
08-23-2012, 05:42 PM
everyone here does realize that the problem with our economy right now is not excessive unfilled jobs and excessive laziness, right?

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 05:44 PM
The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

Yep. It'd be nice to see someone have the courage to cross the aisle and sit down with an opposing individual and have a real conversation about how to fix the social system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everyone is too busy drawing dividing lines in the sand so they can appeal to their base without looking "weak", as if approaching a situation and attempting to compromise with the other side in improving this country is "weak". It should be viewed as just the opposite but that's not the world we live in.

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 05:59 PM
everyone here does realize that the problem with our economy right now is not excessive unfilled jobs and excessive laziness, right?

I don't think anyone would make that claim. Still, any financial relief you can provide the welfare system should be considered a good thing.

Willihammer
08-23-2012, 06:04 PM
The economy suffers for the same reason the Twins are in a fix: ie. depleted farm system and stubborn old-way thinking from the front offices. There is engineering/financial/biomedical talent in the workforce but Of who is talented, some are ignored by employers in favor of experienced veterans who work on the cheap. We are in a difficult state of social evolution but no gov't agency should interrupt at this point. State Interference in hiring practice would cost temporarily a slice of economic freedom and long-term much litigation / legislation to fix when inevitably the education system starts failing to produce another generation as talented as the current one.

Ask any CEO, the number one demand of struggling companies is not a change in interest rate or anything else the president might adjunctly affect, its only more talented employees.

Destroy the education system and start anew. There is substantial waste caused by unions (I am a union employee at the U of MN), there is as much or more waste by administrators. The unions like to think a dollar spent on a union employee is 100% recycled and multiplied back into the economy. Its not. The administrators like to think they are earning their free lunches and support staffs. They're not. BLow it up, start over, and make the focus turning out science/math/business majors, not funding a blok of voters.

TheLeviathan
08-23-2012, 08:00 PM
Destroy the education system and start anew. There is substantial waste caused by unions (I am a union employee at the U of MN), there is as much or more waste by administrators. The unions like to think a dollar spent on a union employee is 100% recycled and multiplied back into the economy. Its not. The administrators like to think they are earning their free lunches and support staffs. They're not. BLow it up, start over, and make the focus turning out science/math/business majors, not funding a blok of voters.

Couldn't agree more.


everyone here does realize that the problem with our economy right now is not excessive unfilled jobs and excessive laziness, right?

Yes and no diehard. You're right that available jobs are few and far between, but again it's because we aren't training people to fit the actual needs in the system. The laziness angle is systemic in a very expensive government program - if we could take those dollars and help train people for skilled positions it will do two things in my book: A) It will give people a higher quality of life and turn them from tax recipients to tax payers and B) it will reward hard work and the middle class attitude. I don't think the economy will start churning merely with job creation, it also has to come from people spending disposable income. Right now most blue collar, middle class families have little to none even though they're working hard. When we start incentivizing that attitude and not the mooching attitude with the money we save, I think we can really get the economic pistons firing again.

diehardtwinsfan
08-24-2012, 10:17 AM
I don't think the economy will start churning merely with job creation, it also has to come from people spending disposable income. Right now most blue collar, middle class families have little to none even though they're working hard.

This right here is a reason for the economic mess. A few things are going on here, and fixing welfare, abolishing it, or expanding it will not solve these. The middle class has no money for a few reasons:

1) Incomes have been largely stagnant for about a decade now
2) Inflation has not been. Using the cooked numbers (e.g. core inflation) posted by the government shows a decline in purchasing power during that same time. If you add real inflation for products that people actually by (like food and gasoline) that purchasing power has dropped even further
3) Crippling debt, which is partly their fault and partly not.

Even today more than 40% of homeowners are underwater with their homes. They cannot sell to take advantage of the lower prices/rates. Fixing welfare won't fix any of these root cause issues, and creating incentives to work might help small pockets of it, but right now we are suffering due to debt and inflation. There are some ways where it would make sense to fix this, such as letting debt be marked to market. If the government was smart in 2008, they would have let rates rise and let banks fail. This would have been much better off long term because prices would have dropped across the board and debt would have been deleveraged. Instead, they handed trillions of dollars that we do not have to bail out the failed banks and told the people to keep on paying their debts. And not one person was prosecuted for this mess, which is sad.


What we should have done was follow the example of Iceland. The economy would be much better off right now had we done so.

biggentleben
08-24-2012, 03:30 PM
The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

Yep. It'd be nice to see someone have the courage to cross the aisle and sit down with an opposing individual and have a real conversation about how to fix the social system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everyone is too busy drawing dividing lines in the sand so they can appeal to their base without looking "weak", as if approaching a situation and attempting to compromise with the other side in improving this country is "weak". It should be viewed as just the opposite but that's not the world we live in.

Many have, in fact, they're built into every title II or title XVI program. You work, you still get some benefits. The problem is that there is little to no money going toward those who have to provide the excess training to the uneducated and/or working disabled, so employers have minimal incentive to hire that person and promote them, especially when a simple cart-pusher at Wal-mart working part time costs that Wal-mart store over $2,000 just to hire, drug test, and train, and then they could just not enjoy the job and leave. It's much, much worse if there are any provided health/vacation benefits with willingness to bring on someone who is actively using something like Vocational Rehabilitation Services. My job for nearly a decade now has focuse in one way or another with finding employment for different marginalized groups (DD and mental health primarily), and I get no incentive for placing someone, the rules to claim any payment from the federal or state funds for the training I do provide are ridiculous, and employers simply do not want to hire someone working with a job coach.

TheLeviathan
08-24-2012, 04:38 PM
If the government was smart in 2008, they would have let rates rise and let banks fail.

I go back and forth on this particular point, but I'd argue we aren't talking about different issues. There is a systemic tendency right now to manipulate the government's policies rather than valuing hard work. The amount of disposable income the middle class has relates to the overall success of the economy - which is gong to get better the more people we have spending their own hard-earned money rather than essentially money laundering tax dollars.

fatbeer
08-25-2012, 01:52 PM
Did the 17 year old kid in Duluth that wasn't raped get his abortion yet?

TheLeviathan
08-25-2012, 02:43 PM
Did the 17 year old kid in Duluth that wasn't raped get his abortion yet?

Don't you think if you want to be controversial...you should at least make sense?

PseudoSABR
08-25-2012, 03:07 PM
The problem is that nobody is having these discussions.

Yep. It'd be nice to see someone have the courage to cross the aisle and sit down with an opposing individual and have a real conversation about how to fix the social system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everyone is too busy drawing dividing lines in the sand so they can appeal to their base without looking "weak", as if approaching a situation and attempting to compromise with the other side in improving this country is "weak". It should be viewed as just the opposite but that's not the world we live in.

Many have, in fact, they're built into every title II or title XVI program. You work, you still get some benefits. The problem is that there is little to no money going toward those who have to provide the excess training to the uneducated and/or working disabled, so employers have minimal incentive to hire that person and promote them, especially when a simple cart-pusher at Wal-mart working part time costs that Wal-mart store over $2,000 just to hire, drug test, and train, and then they could just not enjoy the job and leave. It's much, much worse if there are any provided health/vacation benefits with willingness to bring on someone who is actively using something like Vocational Rehabilitation Services. My job for nearly a decade now has focuse in one way or another with finding employment for different marginalized groups (DD and mental health primarily), and I get no incentive for placing someone, the rules to claim any payment from the federal or state funds for the training I do provide are ridiculous, and employers simply do not want to hire someone working with a job coach.These are interesting insights. Thanks.

fatbeer
08-25-2012, 06:38 PM
Did the 17 year old kid in Duluth that wasn't raped get his abortion yet?

Don't you think if you want to be controversial...you should at least make sense?

I know boys don't have babies, and the rape wasn't classified as legitimate, but still the kid should get to murder an infant or something. If partial birth abortion is OK why not 3 month olds? You could even allow a women to make the choice for him.

TheLeviathan
08-25-2012, 06:51 PM
Again, no context and just wild incendiary nonsense.

fatbeer
08-25-2012, 09:15 PM
So whats the context of the war on women? Should I start a new thread every time the Democrats do something idiotic? The two most significant political stories of the week was the DFL law maker having sex with a 17 year old and a Republican saying that abortion should be illegal un all cases. Somehow a Republican having a stance on an issue is supposed to hurt Romney, but sex with a minor in a public place is a one day story that has nothing to do with anyone else.

biggentleben
08-25-2012, 11:44 PM
So whats the context of the war on women? Should I start a new thread every time the Democrats do something idiotic? The two most significant political stories of the week was the DFL law maker having sex with a 17 year old and a Republican saying that abortion should be illegal un all cases. Somehow a Republican having a stance on an issue is supposed to hurt Romney, but sex with a minor in a public place is a one day story that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Once again, sense...you're making none. These have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, but good try in attempting to equate them.

TheLeviathan
08-26-2012, 12:17 AM
So whats the context of the war on women? Should I start a new thread every time the Democrats do something idiotic? The two most significant political stories of the week was the DFL law maker having sex with a 17 year old and a Republican saying that abortion should be illegal un all cases. Somehow a Republican having a stance on an issue is supposed to hurt Romney, but sex with a minor in a public place is a one day story that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Well, at least you're approaching making sense. Your first two posts were just ridiculous.

The reality is, right or wrong, political sex scandals are almost so commonplace that we don't pay attention unless they are truly outlandish. The DFL guy should be condemned and everyone, regardless of affiliation, should call for resignation. What the moron Republican said feeds a talking point of the Democrats and gives it merit. That has political ramifications because it strengthen's the opposition's message. There is your difference.

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 06:22 AM
I agree it feeds a talking point, but on day one every Republican called him out on it. The DFL failed to call out a child molester for several days. I think the Obama campaign is in so deep on talking points lies and rethoric that it's becoming see through. We all understand most Republicans are pro life, the fact that one guys reasoning isn't all that intelligent is meaningless. I'd say it's just as idiotic to be pro choice because women have it so bad using things like equal pay as a justification as I saw Howard Dean do on MSNBC yesterday. If you think the baby is not worth anything and doesn't yet know it exist then sure be pro life. I have a tough time seeing a difference between an infant being murdered and a late term abortion.

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 06:43 AM
Convention delayed until Tuesday because of the hurricane. Kind of a non story, the Ann Romney speech was already moved to Tuesday and no network coverage was planned for Monday, but if the Rand Paul speech is eliminated or inserted in the middle of the afternoon, it's gonna hurt. Some Paul supporters are gonna consider this the last straw especially if the storm is pretty routine in the Tampa area. It will be interesting how the Paul supporters react during the nomination process. Nothing wrong with passion for another candidate in the room so long as they don't start chanting Gary Johnson.

old nurse
08-26-2012, 07:57 AM
I see having some time away to ponder communication skills did not improve someone's communication.

TheLeviathan
08-26-2012, 08:36 AM
I agree it feeds a talking point, but on day one every Republican called him out on it. The DFL failed to call out a child molester for several days.

You are comparing a state rep to a u.s. rep - it's incredibly stupid. Just stop.

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 10:08 AM
I see having some time away to ponder communication skills did not improve someone's communication.

And the personal insults keep on coming. I hear a rumor thats not allowed.

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 10:11 AM
I agree it feeds a talking point, but on day one every Republican called him out on it. The DFL failed to call out a child molester for several days.

You are comparing a state rep to a u.s. rep - it's incredibly stupid. Just stop.

No I'm comparing party leaderships reactions, in the case of the state rep at the state level. Mark Dayton was silent. Considering the man committed a crime and was not charged, it seems the morals of the Democrat party are worse then the morals at Penn State.

PseudoSABR
08-26-2012, 01:16 PM
I see having some time away to ponder communication skills did not improve someone's communication.

And the personal insults keep on coming. I hear a rumor thats not allowed.He's calling the comparison stupid; it's up to the rest of us to make the inference about you.

flpmagikat
08-26-2012, 07:33 PM
Alot of democrats are awful people, most of the time they dont try and legislate it.

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 11:32 PM
I see having some time away to ponder communication skills did not improve someone's communication.

And the personal insults keep on coming. I hear a rumor thats not allowed.He's calling the comparison stupid; it's up to the rest of us to make the inference about you.

Reported, if you can't avoid personal insults don't hit submit.

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 11:34 PM
It's immoral to give to charity you know

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 11:34 PM
Alot of democrats are awful people, most of the time they dont try and legislate it.

Watch it. Stuff like that will get you banned around here.

fatbeer
08-26-2012, 11:36 PM
Alot of democrats are awful people, most of the time they dont try and legislate it.

Watch it. Stuff like that will get you banned around here.

Also don't report people that personally insult you, that will end up getting you banned too if you happen not to be a Democrat.

biggentleben
08-27-2012, 12:15 AM
it seems the morals of the Democrat party are worse then the morals at Penn State.

That's just above and beyond. Duly flagged.

old nurse
08-27-2012, 06:01 AM
I see having some time away to ponder communication skills did not improve someone's communication.

And the personal insults keep on coming. I hear a rumor thats not allowed.He's calling the comparison stupid; it's up to the rest of us to make the inference about you.


Reported, if you can't avoid personal insults don't hit submit.

You were not the only one given time away. The others came back as you did with much the same tone as before. What is your point in posting what you do? If it is to convince people your point of view is correct, my point stands for you. If it is to antagonize, see the rule about the general negativity.

old nurse
08-27-2012, 06:06 AM
it seems the morals of the Democrat party are worse then the morals at Penn State.

That's just above and beyond. Duly flagged.

Did some people not read what has been posted by the core of the group running the board? Libertarian themes are more likely than not. Some righties, some lefties. The point is to have a flow of ideas on the board. If they want to post like they have been, then there are places like Yahoo.

fatbeer
08-27-2012, 06:16 AM
[QUOTE=fatbeer;49616]it seems the morals of the Democrat party are worse then the morals at Penn State.

That's just above and beyond. Duly flagged.[/QUOTE

56 year old men having sex with kids is 56 year old men having sex with kids

fatbeer
08-27-2012, 06:19 AM
Hard to have a flow of ideas when everyone feels the need to say your point is confusing. Sorry for being bothered by a law maker with his pants down with a minor. Sorry for being bothered that Mark Dayton and the state Democrat party thought it was fine.

fatbeer
08-27-2012, 06:23 AM
Meanwhile in Missuri...some guy said something that Democrats thought they could fake outrage against to hurt the Rommney. Guess what only irresponsible people and people who after consulting a doctor have few safe options get abortions. Rape could be an exception, but until Barack Obama and the Democrats want to make it one of the only exceptions it's not worthy of a meaningful disscusion. Lets discuss voter ID laws, and decide if we want to be a state and country of responsible people or irresponsible people.

fatbeer
08-27-2012, 06:27 AM
Lets just be real clear. I was banned for insulting a person who said it was irresponsible to give charity by a mod who jumped in and piled on that claim and demonstrated left leaning politics. During my time away a 56 year old Democrat law maker was caught having sex with a minor, if the ideas didn't flow as well as they should have my week away might have something to do with it. Democrat politics is always dirty, and I fully expect to be banned here because of that, but I'm just gonna laugh if and when it does.

biggentleben
08-27-2012, 07:01 AM
it seems the morals of the Democrat party are worse then the morals at Penn State.

That's just above and beyond. Duly flagged.

Did some people not read what has been posted by the core of the group running the board? Libertarian themes are more likely than not. Some righties, some lefties. The point is to have a flow of ideas on the board. If they want to post like they have been, then there are places like Yahoo.

I agree. It's been ridiculous going for the "shock comment" factor. Not so much for idea flow.

biggentleben
08-27-2012, 07:05 AM
Lets just be real clear. I was banned for insulting a person who said it was irresponsible to give charity by a mod who jumped in and piled on that claim and demonstrated left leaning politics. During my time away a 56 year old Democrat law maker was caught having sex with a minor, if the ideas didn't flow as well as they should have my week away might have something to do with it. Democrat politics is always dirty, and I fully expect to be banned here because of that, but I'm just gonna laugh if and when it does.

You'll be banned because you're constantly ripping the leadership of the message board and obviously haven't learned anything from your time away, nothing to do with partisan politics.

Brock Beauchamp
08-27-2012, 07:08 AM
It's right there in the rules. You can attack an idea, not a poster. Everyone needs to stop reporting posts that don't violate the rules.

Clean this thread up or it's going to get locked. I'm on a phone right now but I'm going to look through this thread more closely when I get home.

TheLeviathan
08-27-2012, 07:21 PM
Meanwhile in Missuri...some guy said something that Democrats thought they could fake outrage against to hurt the Rommney. Guess what only irresponsible people and people who after consulting a doctor have few safe options get abortions. Rape could be an exception, but until Barack Obama and the Democrats want to make it one of the only exceptions it's not worthy of a meaningful disscusion. Lets discuss voter ID laws, and decide if we want to be a state and country of responsible people or irresponsible people.

Voter ID is nothing but a slimey attempt to restrict democratic voters. It's every bit as sleezy as when Dems appeal to the poor by giving handouts.

All you're doing is repeating obnoxious talking points. There is nothing of substance.

Brock Beauchamp
08-28-2012, 06:52 AM
Voter ID is nothing but a slimey attempt to restrict democratic voters. It's every bit as sleezy as when Dems appeal to the poor by giving handouts.

More sleazy, actually. The Dems are just pandering to a demographic to pull in votes. The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Yay, democracy.

Kobs
08-28-2012, 11:22 PM
It's a thin line between pandering and representing.

Ultima Ratio
08-28-2012, 11:31 PM
The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Which, and how do you know?

Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.

Kobs
08-28-2012, 11:37 PM
The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Which, and how do you know?

Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.

Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so?

Are you in favor of requiring each person in this country to obtain a government issued identification card?

Ultima Ratio
08-28-2012, 11:50 PM
The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Which, and how do you know?

Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.

Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so?


Are you in favor of requiring each person in this country to obtain a government issued identification card?

Seeing if someone is who they claim to be protects the one legal voter, one legal vote principle.

Nah, I prefer every newborn get a biometric microchip in the spine. Seriously? Many forms of photo ID are acceptable.

Kobs
08-28-2012, 11:58 PM
The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Which, and how do you know?

Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.

Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so?

Seeing if someone is who they claim to be protects the one legal voter, one legal vote principle.

Answer the question or don't quote me. Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so?

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 12:06 AM
[QUOTE=Ultima Ratio;50334][QUOTE=Brock Beauchamp;50096]The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Which, and how do you know?




Answer the question or don't quote me. Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so?

Who is voting legally, how are they doing it, and how does a photo ID prohibit them from continuing to vote legally?

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 12:20 AM
I'll put them out one-by-one, but I don't think any amount of evidence could persuade those who'd rather naively believe that every election is free of any and all voter fraud. Let's begin with one case close to home for many on this board:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/Al-Franken-May-Have-Won-His-Senate-Seat-Through-Voter-Fraud

Brock Beauchamp
08-29-2012, 07:20 AM
The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Which, and how do you know?

Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.

The democratic process is supposed to be an inclusive process. Adding another step (and requiring people to pay money, as they're doing in many states) is NOT a step forward in that democratic process.

No serious study has found voter fraud to be even a glimmer of a problem in this country and these laws don't step on the toes of one of the easiest ways to create "fraud" in voting (absentee ballots). Absentee voting also happens to be a traditionally Republican voter block. Don't you see the trend here? And if you do, how can you not be disgusted by it? The GOP is going out of their way to squash traditionally Democratic voting blocks by requiring additional steps for the poor and the elderly to vote, two groups that vote Blue and also happen to not have identification at a rate about five times that of the typical white middle classer.

Brock Beauchamp
08-29-2012, 07:23 AM
I'll put them out one-by-one, but I don't think any amount of evidence could persuade those who'd rather naively believe that every election is free of any and all voter fraud. Let's begin with one case close to home for many on this board:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/Al-Franken-May-Have-Won-His-Senate-Seat-Through-Voter-Fraud

Guess what Voter ID laws don't fix? What you're reading about right there. Unless identification cards start listing "felon" on them, your "fix" isn't going to work. Those people can still walk up to the polls and vote.

One of the great things about this country is that it's illegal to require the citizenry to carry around "papers" to identify themselves. It's one of the things we hold dear to avoid becoming a police state, something the Republicans bitch about the Democrats creating on a daily basis.

Yet it's amazing how willingly they embrace moving toward that police state the moment they think it can win them an election or two. Disgusting. I don't see how anyone can support such a blatant move to rig the ballots.

biggentleben
08-29-2012, 10:03 AM
I work with many who cannot afford an ID. One woman I work with is in her 70s, and she simply will not be able to afford an ID, and after watching this story on the news, she talked with me in tears about it as she has voted in every election she has ever been able to, and she takes great pride in fulfilling her right to vote. Now it's becoming a paid right, in other words, not a "right" anymore than the "right" to groceries.

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 11:49 AM
If you cannot afford a photo ID, then the state would supply you with one free of charge. Why is this is problem?

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 12:06 PM
@ RP:

So dramatic: "police state" "carrying papers" -- have you ever traveled over seas? Get a grip.

First you say: "No serious study has found voter fraud to be even a glimmer of a problem in this country"
Then you say that felons do indeed vote illegally, but there's nothing we can do about it.

You are a problem solver.

Here's another:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/#ixzz1hE0jMR8E

Brock Beauchamp
08-29-2012, 05:35 PM
Answer the question or don't quote me. Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so?

Who is voting legally, how are they doing it, and how does a photo ID prohibit them from continuing to vote legally?

It seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the people who wish to create a new law, not the ones who wish to retain the status quo.

Brock Beauchamp
08-29-2012, 05:45 PM
@ RP:

So dramatic: "police state" "carrying papers" -- have you ever traveled over seas? Get a grip.

Get a grip? Because I don't want the government requiring everyone to carry identification? Because I believe in minimizing the government's role in society? And what on Earth does traveling overseas have to do with this argument? I'm pretty sure the GOP goes out of its way to avoid being anything like Europe. Why the change of heart in this instance?



First you say: "No serious study has found voter fraud to be even a glimmer of a problem in this country"
Then you say that felons do indeed vote illegally, but there's nothing we can do about it.

You are a problem solver.

I never said that felons voted illegally, I said that the proposed law you support doesn't stop felons from voting (which it doesn't). You're advocating the passage of a law that won't do a damned thing to stop this supposed voter fraud. So, the law doesn't do anything about absentee voting, it doesn't stop felons from voting, it adds to our tax burden by providing free IDs to those who need them, and it's creating a "solution" to a problem that has never been substantiated outside of right wing spin factories (the people who oversaw the Franken recount have stated multiple times that there was NO indication of voter fraud in that election).

Can someone explain to me why this is considered a good idea again? I seem to be missing something. I look at the evidence and I see one reason for this bill's creation: the Republicans want to minimize the poor and elderly vote because they don't traditionally vote for the GOP.

And that's disgusting. This is all anyone should have to see about voter ID to see that the motivations behind the law have absolutely nothing to do with "cleaning up" the voting process. It's a cockblock of the vote, nothing more.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 07:58 PM
@ RP:

So dramatic: "police state" "carrying papers" -- have you ever traveled over seas? Get a grip.

Get a grip? Because I don't want the government requiring everyone to carry identification? Because I believe in minimizing the government's role in society? And what on Earth does traveling overseas have to do with this argument? I'm pretty sure the GOP goes out of its way to avoid being anything like Europe. Why the change of heart in this instance?



First you say: "No serious study has found voter fraud to be even a glimmer of a problem in this country"
Then you say that felons do indeed vote illegally, but there's nothing we can do about it.

You are a problem solver.

I never said that felons voted illegally, I said that the proposed law you support doesn't stop felons from voting (which it doesn't). You're advocating the passage of a law that won't do a damned thing to stop this supposed voter fraud. So, the law doesn't do anything about absentee voting, it doesn't stop felons from voting, it adds to our tax burden by providing free IDs to those who need them, and it's creating a "solution" to a problem that has never been substantiated outside of right wing spin factories (the people who oversaw the Franken recount have stated multiple times that there was NO indication of voter fraud in that election).

Can someone explain to me why this is considered a good idea again? I seem to be missing something. I look at the evidence and I see one reason for this bill's creation: the Republicans want to minimize the poor and elderly vote because they don't traditionally vote for the GOP.

And that's disgusting. This is all anyone should have to see about voter ID to see that the motivations behind the law have absolutely nothing to do with "cleaning up" the voting process. It's a cockblock of the vote, nothing more.

]

I don't think it's asking too much present photo ID when you cast a vote, and I don't think it's a burden to pay 10 bucks to get one either, this objection is invented BS. BUT -- Again, if you can't afford a photo ID the taxpayer will provide you with one. How does this affect the poor and elderly then?

You said: "One of the great things about this country is that it's illegal to require the citizenry to carry around "papers" to identify themselves. It's one of the things we hold dear to avoid becoming a police state, something the Republicans bitch about the Democrats creating on a daily basis."

Maybe you don't understand that the requirement is to have photo ID to vote doesn't mean you must have photo ID with you at all times, just once every two years for the most part. Since you apparently don't know this or intentionally throw it out there again, as if this is the requirement that 70% of Americans (not a GOP issue exclusively) are in favor of, I'd like point out that you apparently have an axe to grind by creating this straw man position to argue against. You make it sound as if American is Nazi Germany with the "having to carry papers" garbage. That's certainly the allusion. Nobody but the Nazi's ever asked for "your papers" -- so this is insulting in itself beside just being completely wrong and a scare tactic. GET A GRIP is correct. Do you know what other countries' policies are on these issues? I'll save you the time and let you know that most countries policies are much stricter. So yes, stop with the drama and over the top outrage. It's easy to resort to platitudes and indignant outrage at what the major parties are doing, in fact it's even fashionable.... in fact it's easy. Too easy.

What's the point of minimizing government's role in our lives if the process by which government is elected and thereby elected to grow or recede is compromised? It bothers me that someone voting illegally has the ability to cancel my vote. Voting fraud is real and while Photo ID will not and cannot stop every kind of fraud, it sure is a non-intrusive start. Can you even name three adults you know who don't have photo ID already.

Finally, If photo ID is required along with a background check in order to exercise one's second amendment right, surely it's not too much to ask for just the photo ID in order to make sure you are who you say you are when you vote. Throw another cheap shot video up, without context or analysis.

TheLeviathan
08-29-2012, 08:06 PM
If you cannot afford a photo ID, then the state would supply you with one free of charge. Why is this is problem?

Are brock's posts invisible or is it your intent to avoid all directquestions/responses by posting shallow nonsense?

Brock Beauchamp
08-29-2012, 08:24 PM
Maybe you don't understand that the requirement is to have photo ID to vote doesn't mean you must have photo ID with you at all times, just once every two years for the most part. Since you apparently don't know this or intentionally throw it out there again, as if this is the requirement that 70% of Americans (not a GOP issue exclusively) are in favor of, I'd like point out that you apparently have an axe to grind by creating this straw man position to argue against. You make it sound as if American is Nazi Germany with the "having to carry papers" garbage. That's certainly the allusion. Nobody but the Nazi's ever asked for "your papers" -- so this is insulting in itself beside just being completely wrong and a scare tactic. GET A GRIP is correct. Do you know what other countries' policies are on these issues? I'll save you the time and let you know that most countries policies are much stricter. So yes, stop with the drama and over the top outrage. It's easy to resort to platitudes and indignant outrage at what the major parties are doing, in fact it's even fashionable.... in fact it's easy. Too easy.

What's the point of minimizing government's role in our lives if the process by which government is elected and thereby elected to grow or recede is compromised? It bothers me that someone voting illegally has the ability to cancel my vote. Voting fraud is real and while Photo ID will not and cannot stop every kind of fraud, it sure is a non-intrusive start. Can you even name three adults you know who don't have photo ID already.

Finally, If photo ID is required along with a background check in order to exercise one's second amendment right, surely it's not too much to ask for just the photo ID in order to make sure you are who you say you are when you vote. Throw another cheap shot video up, without context or analysis.

Again, I do not care what policies Europe, Canada, or anyone else has regarding identification. They're not a standard I wish to hold my country to in the "freedom" department in most cases.

And I don't care how many people are for the passage of this law. Jim Crow laws were passed. Same-sex marriage bans have been passed. The population passes dumb ass laws on a near-daily basis. Might does not make right.

I bring up the "papers" point because it's a significant part of this country's history and it's something the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple times. Requiring people to register and identify themselves to vote isn't that far from literacy tests to vote in the old days. It's not something that's being created to curb voter fraud; if it was, it'd actually try to do something to close some of the easier loopholes to get around. It doesn't do that. It leaves them wide freakin' open. Who are the people without ID? Generally, they're black. Or they're poor. Or they're old. Do you know the pain in the ass it will require to get the government to pay for the identification? It's going to require pay stubs, welfare checks, tax receipts, that sort of thing. On top of that, you have to get the ID, which means you need time off work or you need to find transportation to the DMV. Not a big deal for a middle class white dude like me but for a car-less 80 year old woman in the ghetto, it poses a much more significant challenge. And for what? To stop voter fraud that has never been proven to be significant enough to matter? Why are we doing this? What is the end goal? I've never seen a serious study that demonstrated voter fraud was significant enough to alter an election.

You bring up felons voting. I bring up how ID laws don't prevent that. You keep deflecting this argument and actually posted a link to Fox-freakin-News, the biggest joke of a news agency in a country of partisan news channels. Come on. I expect better than that. Instead of just supposing that voter fraud exists because someone told you it did, go find actual studies that examine the situation. And when you come up blank, ask yourself one question: Why are Republicans doing this? I guarantee you're not going to like the answer if you're anything more the a hard-line member of the GOP who eats up every line of BS they feed you. You may not like that video but it's there, if you want to hear more "context", go find a longer clip. The problem is that you saw the entirety of his speech's "context" regarding voter ID laws. He flat-out admitted that it's a poll-rigging attempt by the GOP. And the public is eating this **** up. It's sad.

Democracy is supposed to be an inclusive process. If you create more obstacles, you alienate those who should be participating in the process the most (ie. those who are under-represented in the first place). And no, I cannot name three adults who do not had identification. And that's my entire point.

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 08:29 PM
If you cannot afford a photo ID, then the state would supply you with one free of charge. Why is this is problem?

Are brock's posts invisible or is it your intent to avoid all directquestions/responses by posting shallow nonsense?
Do go on.

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 09:49 PM
I'll respond ad loc with fallacies noted:

[QUOTE]Who are the people without ID? Generally, they're black. Earlier you didn't include this as an/the affected group, why?

And I don't care how many people are for the passage of this law. Jim Crow laws were passed. Absurd comparison, but now you finally admit who you claim will be disenfranchised, thereby making an innocuous issue of voter integrity one of racism. This is the go-to line for anyone who wants to squelch debate. Nicely done. Do you have any proof of this motivation (to disenfranchise black would-be-voters)?


Requiring people to register and identify themselves to vote isn't that far from literacy tests to vote in the old days.
Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are? No Can you fail a literacy test? Yes Fallacy: false analogy The requirements of photo ID are the same for ALL voters. I don't share your thinking that some demographics, especially black Americans need special help to get an ID... This is insulting to black Americans.



Do you know the pain in the ass it will require to get the government to pay for the identification? It's going to require pay stubs, welfare checks, tax receipts, that sort of thing.

Oh my - it would be impossible! If government should be involved in one thing it should ensure the integrity of elections. That an national defense and a couple other things... I do share your vision of smaller government at least.


On top of that, you have to get the ID, which means you need time off work or you need to find transportation to the DMV. Not a big deal for a middle class white dude like me but for a car-less 80 year old woman in the ghetto

(fallacy: appeal to emotion) Here you go again. How many car-less 80 year old women in the ghetto do you suppose there are. And how many of them can't get a ride from a friend or family member.... oh my goodness, how do they get to the doctor?




You bring up felons voting. I bring up how ID laws don't prevent that.
I support cleaning up the voting rosters so that felons and other illegal would-be-voters are not registered. Once this is done, a felon may still try to use someone elses name and register in that persons name, so long as that person's name is on the registration role. A photo ID would prevent this from happening.



You keep deflecting this argument and actually posted a link to Fox-freakin-News, the biggest joke of a news agency in a country of partisan news channels.

This is really sad. As with most of your statements, you are long on the claims and short on the evidence. They are a joke? Why? Because you say so? You make it hard to present proof to refute your claims if all the proof is thrown out because you don't like the source. (Fallacy: Red herring -- it's a distraction, Fallacy: Poisoning the Well -- unfairly indicting all sources and views of Fox) Good for me, there are plenty of other sources... I'll just have to get them through the Brock clearinghouse of acceptable news sources. Someone who resorts to this kind of debate tactic is unworthy of further debate. I thought you made up rules against ad hominum (poisoning the well is a form of ad hominum, but I'm sure you knew that)

Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0723/Voter-ID-laws-are-inherently-reasonable-not-racist-or-Republican


Come on. I expect better than that. Instead of just supposing that voter fraud exists because someone told you it did, go find actual studies that examine the situation. That's why I'm asking you. You know a lot.
Seriously, you have no idea how or why I hold this position other than what I've written. You think insulting your opponent has an effect on the argument? [fallacy: ad hominum]


And when you come up blank, ask yourself one question: Why are Republicans doing this? Condescending ad hominum. As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me. If I were republican I'd sure pat you on the head for the compliment that you think 70% of the country is GOP, but it's not -- though a conservative philosophy is the majority in the country.


I guarantee you're not going to like the answer if you're anything more the a hard-line member of the GOP who eats up every line of BS they feed you.
Ad hominum




And no, I cannot name three adults who do not had identification. And that's my entire point. Following you logic, you must not have any black friends. How sad for you. This says more about the white guilt drizzled throughout this most current treatise on racial demagoguery.

Let me leave you with a philosophical maxim: An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

With your permission, I'd like to use this post in my logic classes. It's, well, an interesting example. In the future I'd advise you that it's okay to be impassioned and hold strong opinions, but it's not okay to only have strong opinions; and don't try to come across as some sage who can note all the ills of society/politics and then abuse your opponent with ad hominum attacks. If it were a couple times only or in jest or just a good ribbing that would be one thing, but you sir should be banned if you were not a mod yourself. Grow up!

TheLeviathan
08-29-2012, 10:17 PM
My phone didn't pull up this page, so my apologies for the crack. I won't apologize for tearing your argument apart:


this objection is invented BS

So you have evidence, since the burden of proof is on you, that $10 will in no way "burden" any intending voter? Do show the evidence of that.


Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are?

So your claim is that photo IDs are 100% effective? By all means, let's see evidence of that. I think your average 16 year old alcohol purchaser would happily disagree. And all the registering in the world isn't going to stop Adam Jones from using his older brother Paul's ID if they look closely enough.


Good for me, there are plenty of other sources... I'll just have to get them through the Brock clearinghouse of acceptable news sources.

For all your pretentious blowhard nonsense you know full well there are fallacies for bias sources of information. If you're going to claim to play the logic game, playing it without integrity and then resorting to a fallacy again to cover up your own fallacy makes it damn hard to take you seriously. Congrats, you are able to use the index in a logic book effectively - avoiding fallacies is very apparently not your intent.


Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0723/Voter-ID-laws-are-inherently-reasonable-not-racist-or-Republican

I'm sorry, which part of this opinion piece are you citing as fact?


As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me.

Again, you climb on your high horse to cry "fallacy" and then support it with a fallacy of your own. Check your index if you need help knowing which one. And...yes....I know I used one - difference is, I'm calling you out for your hypocrisy, not claiming any self-righteous superiority myself like you.

I think using this in your logic class would be great. If your students have a functioning mind, they'll call you out for your grandstanding hypocrisy. Voter idea is not driven by some quest for purity in the electorate. It is being pursued for exactly the reasons one idiot in Pennsylvania let slip.

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 10:41 PM
So you have evidence, since the burden of proof is on you, that $10 will in no way "burden" any intending voter? Do show the evidence of that.


The courts have decided this, not me, not you.


Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are?


So your claim is that photo IDs are 100% effective? By all means, let's see evidence of that. I think your average 16 year old alcohol purchaser would happily disagree. And all the registering in the world isn't going to stop Adam Jones from using his older brother Paul's ID if they look closely enough.

Missed the point on that. The point is that it's not like a poll tax as was suggested. No ID is full proof, but it certainly cuts down fraud, or are you suggesting driver ID, ID to buy a guy be done away with because they can be faked?




Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0723/Voter-ID-laws-are-inherently-reasonable-not-racist-or-Republican


I'm sorry, which part of this opinion piece are you citing as fact?

In reply to the sound bite video. Here's the context from that opinion piece which cites.... facts:


"The best example of why voter ID laws are necessary can be found in Pennsylvania, where Republicans are accused of trying to suppress the African-American vote by enacting legislation requiring proof of identity when voting. A statement by the GOP leader of the state House of Representatives (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+House+of+Representatives), in which he claimed the voter ID law would guarantee that the state will go to Mitt Romney (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Mitt+Romney) in November, is often cited as evidence of the law’s discriminatory or political intent. But the statement is often referenced without citing the context of the political reality in the state.As Gov. Tom Corbett (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Tom+Corbett) repeatedly cited that context during the debate over the voter ID law, stating that a number of election precincts in Philadelphia (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Philadelphia) that are reliably Democratic have produced results which showed that more than 100 percent of registered voters cast ballots in some years in districts where turnout is normally low. It is true that these areas are also largely African-American, but that does not make such results more explicable or less suspicious.Does anyone really believe Philadelphia is the only place in America where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud? The Supreme Court (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Supreme+Court) doesn’t. In 2008, it upheld an Indiana (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Indiana) law requiring voter ID saying that it posed no undue burden on voters. And in his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/John+Paul+Stevens) wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real but...it could affect the outcome of a close election.”"

As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me.


Again, you climb on your high horse to cry "fallacy" and then support it with a fallacy of your own. Check your index if you need help knowing which one. And...yes....I know I used one - difference is, I'm calling you out for your hypocrisy, not claiming any self-righteous superiority myself like you.

Self-righteous? Condescending? Since I've never engaged you, I would think we'd have a fresh start civilly. Brock flew off the handle and said some pretty insulting things before my rejoinder.

Again, you miss that point. Of course that is ad populum (I've emboldened it so you know where I'm at). But you are wrong that I use that solely to make my case. Furthermore, the point you missed is that this is not -- cannot-- be a GOP only issue if 70% of the country agrees with it... Get it?


Voter idea is not driven by some quest for purity in the electorate. How do you know?


It is being pursued for exactly the reasons one idiot in Pennsylvania let slip.[/QUOTE] Again, see the piece linked above and the portion I've copied above. Even with this, you will still believe that this is about racism with this video as the smoking gun. Why? Because you WANT to believe that the GOP is racist. If they weren't your head would explode.

biggentleben
08-29-2012, 11:07 PM
If you cannot afford a photo ID, then the state would supply you with one free of charge. Why is this is problem?

Not entirely true in any version of ID verification that I've seen for any state. Each still requires documentation that would require payment to obtain, like a birth certificate. Nevermind that processing time on such requests even for those who do have the money can be months just to get a birth certificate or other such documentation (Social Security card) back to a person.

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 11:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZf25pmgR4c&amp;feature=related

Just for fun since we're posting videos. The best part is that you can't even get into the Justice Department to petition the government for redress of grievances (a constitutional right) -- if, say, you feel your vote has been disenfranchised -- without first showing photo ID.

Also to Hobbes' monster: if you say your going to destroy someone's argument, you had better follow through with it or you look impossibly foolish.

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 11:13 PM
If you cannot afford a photo ID, then the state would supply you with one free of charge. Why is this is problem?

Not entirely true in any version of ID verification that I've seen for any state. Each still requires documentation that would require payment to obtain, like a birth certificate. Nevermind that processing time on such requests even for those who do have the money can be months just to get a birth certificate or other such documentation (Social Security card) back to a person.

I wanted to put that out there just to argue the merits of the law if that provision were included. Yes, some states are moving towards this provision while others will require that the voter is solely responsible for procuring her own ID. It's just interesting to me that people would still argue against the measure if the IDs were 'free' -- as if this amounted to carrying one's paper's around at all times for fear that the Gestapo were coming. Interesting world.

PseudoSABR
08-30-2012, 01:51 AM
When someone bolds logical fallacies we know that they are new to them; it's like underlining the word-of-the-day. Killer, you used a big word; so proud!

RP and Levi are killing it plenty here, and I'm glad my liberal ass is posting in this thread to illuminate their moderation, because their points are wholly legitimate. Here's hoping I don't color their fine points more fringe by continuing on.

Look, even a biased dude like me can live with what the ****ed-up populace votes into office. That's democracy, it might be stupid, but it gets what it deserves. Voting suppression is so ugly and cynical; the whole idea is pretensed on giving up on humanity, giving up on educating people to one's insightful ideology, and actively working against the interest of people whom no ones cares to persuade. UR, can you really stand behind a party win if it's done through means that delegitimize honest votes? Indeed, part of my American pride comes from the fact that we are not Machiavelli; that we go about **** in an honest way.

(Caution: the following statements and questions form a slippery slope.)
Is the cost of preventing fraud worth delegitimizing honest votes that work against my beliefs? Do I believe that my ideology, my means of governing is worth suppressing other peoples' votes for their own good, with only their foolish opinions of their own lives as a defense? (Slips.) How, again, do we define fascism? A police state? Indeed, to what ends are individuals of a singular philosophy willing to ensure, even if by overtly malevolent means, their preferred outcome?

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 06:38 AM
Jesus Christ, you cannot accuse another person of ad hominem and fallacy over and over again and then split up their post into twenty different pieces, picking and choosing the parts you want to argue and ignoring the rest. I'm not even going to bother responding to that except with one question...

If Voter ID is so vital to the "integrity" of our elections, why is only one party supporting it?

Pro Voter ID: Republican Party

Con Voter ID: Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, Democratic Farmer Labor, Green Party, Constitution Party, Independence Party, etc etc etc.

Don't you find that just a little odd? After all, you keep throwing out how 70% of America is behind this bill. Why isn't that being represented at all in party support? How do you not see that this is a voter suppression bill?

Here is a well-articulated, informative, and most importantly, sourced article on the breakdown of Republican talking points:

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/debunking_misinformation_on_photo_id/

twinsnorth49
08-30-2012, 11:09 AM
.

Again, I do not care what policies Europe, Canada, or anyone else has regarding identification. They're not a standard I wish to hold my country to in the "freedom" department in most cases.

Perhaps you should raise your standards.

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 11:24 AM
Again, I do not care what policies Europe, Canada, or anyone else has regarding identification. They're not a standard I wish to hold my country to in the "freedom" department in most cases.

Perhaps you should raise your standards.

In this case, I think not.

Ultima Ratio
08-30-2012, 12:22 PM
Are you ready to admit that the so-called admission of voter suppression video clip (all 13 seconds) you posted is completely misleading and you are foolish to use it, now that the context is provided that there is voter fraud -- to the effect of precincts reporting over 100% voting participation in large democrat voting areas in Philadelphia, and if this fraud is curtailed, Romney has a much better chance of winning the state?

PseudoSABR
08-30-2012, 01:18 PM
A federal court in Washington D.C. on Thursday rejected a Texas law requiring voters to show certain types of photographic identification in order to cast a ballot. The three-judge panel found that the law imposes “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” pointing out that racial minorities are more likely to live in poverty.http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/voter_id_texas_ruling.php?ref=fpblg

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 01:37 PM
Are you ready to admit that the so-called admission of voter suppression video clip (all 13 seconds) you posted is completely misleading and you are foolish to use it, now that the context is provided that there is voter fraud -- to the effect of precincts reporting over 100% voting participation in large democrat voting areas in Philadelphia, and if this fraud is curtailed, Romney has a much better chance of winning the state?

I can't tell you his intent, only the way his words come off... That the PA Voter ID law will win the state for Romney and that it has a positive impact for the GOP and a negative impact on Democrats.

Also, you keep talking about this 100%+ district. I can't find news stories about it anywhere. On the other hand, I can find the ruling of the Federal Judge on the legality of the PA Voter ID law passed:


Most striking is that the judge allowed for the law to continue even though the state was not able to produce evidence of any voter fraud occurring in Pennsylvania, which was the premise upon which Republican state legislators passed the law.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169408/wake-voter-id-ruling-pennsylvania-rep-pushes-myth-voter-fraud

The state itself could not find provable examples of voter fraud. The bill was held up anyway (overturning legislators based on the "usefulness" of a law is certainly not at the court's discretion) but the fact that in front of sworn testimony, the state could not find examples of voter fraud is pretty damning.

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 02:44 PM
A federal court in Washington D.C. on Thursday rejected a Texas law requiring voters to show certain types of photographic identification in order to cast a ballot. The three-judge panel found that the law imposes “strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor,” pointing out that racial minorities are more likely to live in poverty.http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/voter_id_texas_ruling.php?ref=fpblg

Reading more into it and found this nugget:


“Nothing in this opinion remotely suggests that section 5 bars all covered jurisdictions from implementing photo ID laws,” the court ruled. “To the contrary, under our reasoning today, such laws might well be precleared if they ensure (1) that all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID, and (2) that any underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of charge.”

Bolded for emphasis. The court ruled that underlying documents should also be free. Interesting. That means you need to provide free IDs. You also need to provide free birth certificates. The costs continue to mount for this nonsense to pass...

Ultima Ratio
08-30-2012, 02:47 PM
From liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writing the 6-3 majority upholding the Indiana photo ID law:


“That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Go read the majority opinion.

Of course, Justice Steven eats up the BS fed to him from Fox news.

Don't you think it's ironic to attack one for using a Fox news story and then cite extreme and unapologetic left wing sources in TheNation and Talkingpointsmemo?

Let me know if this is admissible evidence:

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html#pa

Also, the right wing group (sarcasm) American University found that less than one half of 0.5% of votes don't currently have ID in states where laws have gone into effect.

Last, "In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”

http://www.askheritage.org/how-does-requiring-a-voter-id-prevent-election-fraud/

I know you want to keep pushing that this is a GOP issue, though this is impossible given the numbers and a Rasmussen poll in 2008 which found that only 22% oppose voter ID laws. So why don't you answer your own question put to those opposing the law: Why does the DNC oppose these laws? Could it be that most fraud is to their benefit?

Conservatives have long wondered why so many elections are close and/or go to the democrat candidate since it is well know that the majority of voters self identify as conservative/republican. One would think that having that demographic majority would yield a majority of GOP winners. Since this is not the case, is it not reasonable to ask why the disparity?

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 02:56 PM
From liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writing the 6-3 majority upholding the Indiana photo ID law:


“That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Go read the majority opinion.

Of course, Justice Steven eats up the BS fed to him from Fox news.

Don't you think it's ironic to attack one for using a Fox news story and then cite extreme and unapologetic left wing sources in TheNation and Talkingpointsmemo?



I wasn't referencing the article, only the segment where the state did not find evidence of voter fraud. You can find that information all over the place, that just happened to be the first relevant Google result I found. I don't even read that website.




Let me know if this is admissible evidence:

http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html#pa


So you're going to source a site called "Rotten Acorn" against the State of Pennsylvania not finding evidence of voter fraud in a court case about voter fraud.



Also, the right wing group (sarcasm) American University found that less than one half of 0.5% of votes don't currently have ID in states where laws have gone into effect.

Last, "In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”

http://www.askheritage.org/how-does-requiring-a-voter-id-prevent-election-fraud/

I know you want to keep pushing that this is a GOP issue, though this is impossible given the numbers and a Rasmussen poll in 2008 which found that only 22% oppose voter idea laws. So why don't you answer your own question put to those opposing the law: Why does the DNC oppose these laws? Could it be that most fraud is to their benefit?

Conservatives have long wondered why so many elections are close and/or go to the democrat candidate since it is well know that the majority of voters self identify as conservative/republican. One would think that having that demographic majority would yield a majority of GOP winners. Since this is not the case, is it now reasonable to ask why the disparity?

Gee, maybe the first black candidate for President had something to do with increased voter turnout. Effect does not equal causality.

Most voters don't identify as Republican. Except for a brief surge in our post-9/11 world, that hasn't been the case for 20 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Ultima Ratio
08-30-2012, 03:07 PM
Referring to the hack video you posted you have now said:




[QUOTE]This is all anyone should have to see about voter ID to see that the motivations behind the law have absolutely nothing to do with "cleaning up" the voting process. It's a cockblock of the vote, nothing more.

I can't tell you his intent, only the way his words come off... That the PA Voter ID law will win the state for Romney and that it has a positive impact for the GOP and a negative impact on Democrats.[/QUOTE

This is probably the closest thing to an admission of clearly smearing this person we can expect from you.

Again, let me suggest that you hear what you want to hear, appropriating this issue, the evidence and quotes to a preconceived narrative/meme.

Ultima Ratio
08-30-2012, 03:13 PM
Most voters don't identify as Republican. Except for a brief surge in our post-9/11 world, that hasn't been the case for 20 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx[/QUOTE]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

This is from 2009, but shows that 2x identify as conservative than liberal.

Ultima Ratio
08-30-2012, 03:15 PM
Gee, maybe the first black candidate for President had something to do with increased voter turnout. Effect does not equal causality.

See, it didn't have the hypothesized impact you're dreaming up.

PseudoSABR
08-30-2012, 03:18 PM
On the thread topic: Does any one still see Paul Ryan as a straight-shooter or a moderate after last night's speech?

PseudoSABR
08-30-2012, 03:20 PM
This is from 2009, but shows that 2x identify as conservative than liberal.Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican. People have no problem identifying as conservative (which means different things to different people); the Republican brand, however, might be too right for even self-identified conservatives to identify with.

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Most voters don't identify as Republican. Except for a brief surge in our post-9/11 world, that hasn't been the case for 20 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

This is from 2009, but shows that 2x identify as conservative than liberal.

I still consider myself a quasi-conservative. That has absolutely nothing to do with my affiliation (or lack thereof) with the Republican Party. Again, I've been a registered Libertarian for 13 years... Most Libs refer to themselves as "conservative", but that doesn't mean they necessarily vote Republican.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason Republicans aren't winning national elections is because of people like me? People who used to vote Republican consistently but became so disenfranchised with the party over the past decade that they can no longer tolerate their stance on issues such as gay rights (didn't matter when nobody was going to vote in same-sex marriage) or abortion (before they started trying to restrict womens' options)? Add in the GOP's staunch support of the Patriot Act (not that the Dems are much better), their fiscal irresponsibility, and their desire to continue ballooning the defense budget and I no longer have any reason to vote for the party as a whole.

Those people may still call themselves "conservatives" but the GOP has spent so much time leaving an awful taste in our mouths that we can no longer consistently vote GOP in good conscience. It's no coincidence that the "Indepedent" moniker has been gaining traction in recent years while the GOP's numbers have declined. The Republican Party continues to slide further right and continues to disenchant people who don't share some of their more insane viewpoints.

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 03:32 PM
On the thread topic: Does any one still see Paul Ryan as a straight-shooter or a moderate after last night's speech?

It was comical to see him call out Obama for the closure of the Janesville, WI auto plant that closed during Bush's term.

I mean, come on.

edit: I found that, technically speaking, Ryan's statement is true... but it's disingenuous to the point of lying. In December of 2008, GM shut down SUV production in Janesville, costing the area over 2,000 jobs.

Four months later in April of 2009, Isuzu shut down their part of the plant, which cost a whopping 57 jobs.

But I believe both announcements preceded Obama's inauguration.

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 03:33 PM
This is probably the closest thing to an admission of clearly smearing this person we can expect from you.

Again, let me suggest that you hear what you want to hear, appropriating this issue, the evidence and quotes to a preconceived narrative/meme.

I still believe it to be a cockblock of the vote. Maybe I was wrong about his motivations but I really don't think I was... Anything more than a cursory glance at these voter ID laws should raise eyebrows over their true purpose.

Ultima Ratio
08-30-2012, 03:39 PM
Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican.

Correct. And 70-75% of the country is not GOP or conservative. Thus, those continually insisting that this is a GOP only issue AND claim to know that the true GOP intentions are nefarious -- those folks are either political hacks and/or insufferable drones.

Ultima Ratio
08-30-2012, 03:54 PM
A little levity from a libertarian website (Whether the author is or not I can't know. And even if I knew, that wouldn't entitle me to claim to know anything more *wink)


"Looks like some racist judge loves him some poll taxes (http://electionlawcenter.com/2012/08/15/breaking-voter-id-wins-in-pa-.aspx). Because he’s racist. And wants to disenfranchise the millions upon millions of people studies from “non-partisan” and “independent” leftwing groups have shown will lose their franchise if they are required to engage in the onerous, unfair, and frankly racisty, polltaxy indignation of having to show a photo ID proving that they are who they are should they wish to vote.After all, it is much easier for our own Justice Department to sue to allow anybody who wants to to vote — several times, in fact, or even while dead, or not a citizen, or not human — than it is to get photo ideas [sic] to people without them. Which is an insurmountable obstacle.Moreso, it is just and fair to sue on behalf of these poor photo-less wretches yearning to be free. And decidedly non-racist, too boot. And decidedly non-polltaxy. Which is how we know that this judge is a racist — having upheld this racist polltax that unfairly and in a very racist way requires people to show ID before voting for other people’s ****."

http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/08/voter-id-in-pa-survives-2447766.html

Forgive the quoted swear word, but it seems this cite's guidelines/rules have already been bent/broken by one of their promulgators, wink*

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 04:00 PM
We have no issues with swear words on this site. If you want to use one that we "don't allow", it will simply appear starred out. That's why the word filters are there in the first place.

Brock Beauchamp
08-30-2012, 04:05 PM
Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican.

Correct. And 70-75% of the country is not GOP or conservative. Thus, those continually insisting that this is a GOP only issue AND claim to know that the true GOP intentions are nefarious -- those folks are either political hacks and/or insufferable drones.

The Democrats don't want the bills to pass because it's bad for the party and good for the GOP. The Libertarians oppose it on principle. I won't speak for the rest because I don't pay much attention to them.

Sadly enough, I'm pretty sure this bill is going to pass in MN. The only hope I have is that Federal Judges will continue to shoot them down, as what happened today with the Texas bill.

On the other hand, I think MN has a damned good shot at stemming the flow of anti-marriage amendments that have been sweeping the country and I'll be damned proud of the state if we do it. I'm seeing more and more of those orange "Don't Restrict Marriage" signs plunked down in front lawns (including my own).

But in the case of Voter ID laws, I think that's a losing battle in the polling booth. Sigh.

ChiTownTwinsFan
08-30-2012, 06:56 PM
Conservatives don't necessarily equal Republican.

Correct. And 70-75% of the country is not GOP or conservative. Thus, those continually insisting that this is a GOP only issue AND claim to know that the true GOP intentions are nefarious -- those folks are either political hacks and/or insufferable drones.

The Democrats don't want the bills to pass because it's bad for the party and good for the GOP. The Libertarians oppose it on principle. I won't speak for the rest because I don't pay much attention to them.

Sadly enough, I'm pretty sure this bill is going to pass in MN. The only hope I have is that Federal Judges will continue to shoot them down, as what happened today with the Texas bill.

On the other hand, I think MN has a damned good shot at stemming the flow of anti-marriage amendments that have been sweeping the country and I'll be damned proud of the state if we do it. I'm seeing more and more of those orange "Don't Restrict Marriage" signs plunked down in front lawns (including my own).

But in the case of Voter ID laws, I think that's a losing battle in the polling booth. Sigh.

You know, if you ran for office I'd be very tempted to vote for you. And I'm fairly socialist. But I like how you stand up for the issues based on real facts, common sense and what is humanly ethical rather than twisted half-truths and scare tactics.

TheLeviathan
08-30-2012, 07:57 PM
[The courts have decided this, not me, not you.

Congrats, you've gotten Brock distracted. Not going to happen here. Which courts and what evidence did they cite that no one would be "burdened" by such a requirement?


Missed the point on that. The point is that it's not like a poll tax as was suggested. No ID is full proof, but it certainly cuts down fraud, or are you suggesting driver ID, ID to buy a guy be done away with because they can be faked?

This is such a juicy mistake. So no ID is fool proof (can I pretend to be you and be a petty jerk about that mistake?) but this will "cut it down". By all means - could you tell me how much is happening now nation-wide. And then give me the numbers on how many less will happen with this? Since you already admitted that this legislation will not fix the problem, just reduce it - how much is this reduction going to be?

FYI - if you're honest here, you're going to realize that this massive concentration of time and campaigning is for a gain that is so minimal you should be ashamed of the pretentious tact you've taken. But by all means - post numbers. Not opinions. Facts. Burden of proof is on you.


"tating that a number of election precincts in Philadelphia (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Philadelphia) that are reliably Democratic have produced results which showed that more than 100 percent of registered voters cast ballots in some years in districts where turnout is normally low. It is true that these areas are also largely African-American, but that does not make such results more explicable or less suspicious.Does anyone really believe Philadelphia is the only place in America where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud? The Supreme Court (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Supreme+Court) doesn’t. In 2008, it upheld an Indiana (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Indiana) law requiring voter ID saying that it posed no undue burden on voters. And in his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/John+Paul+Stevens) wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real but...it could affect the outcome of a close election.”"

A Justice's opinion is still an opinion. Since you undoubtedly researched which precincts these were - care to share which ones they were and evidence of this? Again, there was no reference in this article so these are not "facts" until shown to be so. As far as I can tell, it is speculation and hearsay. I googled for these precinct issues and all I can find is this article. No outside verification doesn't do much to establish this as fact. So, again, since you undoubtedly fact checked what you posted - care to enlighten what this author did not and actually provide facts and not just the appearance of them?

Or are all articles I post that say something is true acceptable as facts?


Self-righteous? Condescending? Since I've never engaged you, I would think we'd have a fresh start civilly. Brock flew off the handle and said some pretty insulting things before my rejoinder.

I don't always agree with Brock, Psuedo, GPA, Hornhead, diehard or any of the other old BYTO crew but I respect them and reading your pretentious nonsense lit me up. So no, we're not going to be civil if this is the tone of your discourse. I'll just give it back to you - better than you can.


How do you know?

Because it's in the same vein as redistricting and all the other things both parties do to screw with the other. That's all this is.


Igain, see the piece linked above and the portion I've copied above. Even with this, you will still believe that this is about racism with this video as the smoking gun. Why? Because you WANT to believe that the GOP is racist. If they weren't your head would explode.

I'm sorry - where did I say anything about racism? Feel free to post this exchange for your class - show what a winner you are at this!

diehardtwinsfan
08-30-2012, 08:24 PM
The GOP is actively trying to get certain demographics to stop voting, period.

Which, and how do you know?

Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.


Just a comment about voter ID, but if people actually cared about vote fraud, they would be outraged at how electronic voting has been implemented in most states.

diehardtwinsfan
08-30-2012, 08:51 PM
On the thread topic: Does any one still see Paul Ryan as a straight-shooter or a moderate after last night's speech?

I'll simply repost this. The man cannot be trusted.

2200

PseudoSABR
08-30-2012, 09:13 PM
Is anyone watching Clint Eastwood lose his **** on TV? This is weird.

Brock Beauchamp
08-31-2012, 07:22 AM
You know, if you ran for office I'd be very tempted to vote for you. And I'm fairly socialist. But I like how you stand up for the issues based on real facts, common sense and what is humanly ethical rather than twisted half-truths and scare tactics.

Heh, thanks. I just try to call it like I see it and rarely agree with any party on more than a few topics (even the Libertarian Party, they just happen to be the closest thing to "my" party). I have very little respect for anyone who follows party lines because, in this day and age, it doesn't make any sense to do so and shows just how little independent thinking that person is putting into their political opinions.

Brock Beauchamp
08-31-2012, 07:24 AM
I'll simply repost this. The man cannot be trusted.

2200

He didn't turn into a fiscal conservative until Obama took office. That should tell you all you need to know about the man and his politics.

It'd be nice if the country was given the option of voting for a real fiscal conservative, bonus points if the person doesn't come with crazy religious baggage. We haven't seen one of those in a long, long time. Eisenhower, maybe? But even Eisenhower's "fiscal conservatism" is in question.

Jocko87
08-31-2012, 08:05 PM
You know, if you ran for office I'd be very tempted to vote for you. And I'm fairly socialist. But I like how you stand up for the issues based on real facts, common sense and what is humanly ethical rather than twisted half-truths and scare tactics.

Heh, thanks. I just try to call it like I see it and rarely agree with any party on more than a few topics (even the Libertarian Party, they just happen to be the closest thing to "my" party). I have very little respect for anyone who follows party lines because, in this day and age, it doesn't make any sense to do so and shows just how little independent thinking that person is putting into their political opinions.

This kinda illustrates my point from several pages ago, when open-minded liberals and conservatives get together and actually talk through issues we often end up agreeing on quite a few things. I can't think of much that I agree with the President or MSNBC on but non-extremist liberals and I usually come to very similar conclusions if we can talk civilly for a while. I maintain that most people are mostly libertarian but don't realize it.

I have also found that for the most part that these discussions are highly ineffective when held on the interwebs. I have had or read several of these conversations with people from my motorcycle boards and then met them in person only to find a completely different individual than their posts were depicting. My main forum doesn't even allow these type of thread because they can be a very slippery slope. I have a feeling this would be an entirely different conversation over some beers.

Also odd that somebody identified themselves as "fairly socialist". Just don't hear that very often.

PseudoSABR
08-31-2012, 10:24 PM
I have a feeling this would be an entirely different conversation over some beers.It would be. The sarcasm, overt hyperbole, and general good will from individuals would be a lot more palatable. Like you said, when we talk about actual policy, we'll come to some agreements if we're willing to give ideologically.

I guess my problem is some of the underlying assumptions that buttress libertarian thinking (likewise, I'm sure some feel the same way about liberalism or social conservatism), and it is in that argument, where we can get heated.

ChiTownTwinsFan
08-31-2012, 10:45 PM
Also odd that somebody identified themselves as "fairly socialist". Just don't hear that very often.

lol

old nurse
09-02-2012, 09:02 AM
In regards to voter ID> Why not have everyone v-chipped at birth so then all you would have to do is scan them in. If the goal of the voter ID was preventing fraud from happening they would offer plans that would prevent it from happening.

TheLeviathan
09-02-2012, 09:29 AM
In regards to voter ID> Why not have everyone v-chipped at birth so then all you would have to do is scan them in. If the goal of the voter ID was preventing fraud from happening they would offer plans that would prevent it from happening.

Yeah thats the funny part - our advocate here even admitted it wont stop with these laws. Cant wait to hear his responses!

Fatt Crapps
09-04-2012, 02:19 PM
Keep America American!

diehardtwinsfan
09-11-2012, 08:58 PM
diehard, thanks for being thoughtful and thorough in responding, but it will take me a couple of days to retort.

still waiting :)

Shane Wahl
09-12-2012, 01:34 AM
With regard to honest debate between "left" and "right" -- seriously the left/right dichotomy is a BIG factor in the problem here. Go check out The Political Compass for a quadrant represenation -- anyway, I agree that someone with some clout needs to make true debates actually occur. For instance, Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader vs. Ron Paul. Both of them know the great problem of the two party system and how the military-industrial and the Federal Reserve are, well, problems, but yet they have actual legitimate differences in view, differences that hearken back, some, to both the founding of the American system and the general role and function of government. THESE other debates? Two factions of the same damn party.