POLITICAL THREAD

[warrior-cat]

Smart spending is pissing in the ocean if you goal is to balance the budget and reduce the debt. Until such time as we get a congress and a president with the nads to step up and put caps on Medicare and Medicaid (and amend the ACC similarly) nothing else matters. You can gut the DOD and all other discretionary spending down to the bone and it won't matter, you'll still be running deficits, unless you create new taxes.

Caps on medical insurance of all types + tax reform = Return to fiscal sanity.

Disagree, if you gut the DOD where it should be, slow illegal immigration to a trickle, stop subsizing unneeded programs (sex habits of the spider monkey etc....), cut out all of the money being spent on green companies, make everyone who is physically able to work that is on welfare do communtiy service (cleans streets, cut public grass, clean parks etc....) or lose their welfare, etc.... and there are more things that I cannot think of at this time, then you could start to cut in to the debt. All raising taxes ever does is allow fisically irresponsible people (Government) to continue to spend more money.

 

[warrior-cat]

I agree with everyone who says we need to get religion out of politics. As a Christian, I believe it is time for the church to step up and deal with the social issues on a community level without government interference. In order to do that however, denomintional biases must be put aside in order to work for the better good. Fighting amongst our selves only leads to destruction. That goes double for the government.

 

[wkycatfan]

I agree with everyone who says we need to get religion out of politics. As a Christian, I believe it is time for the church to step up and deal with the social issues on a community level without government interference. In order to do that however, denomintional biases must be put aside in order to work for the better good. Fighting amongst our selves only leads to destruction. That goes double for the government.

It's a failure of church and community organizations and society as a whole that we don't take care of the poor and needy on a local level. It has opened the door for government to attempt to do it by taxing and spending in much more inefficient and ineffective ways.

 

[P19978]

All raising taxes ever does is allow fiscally irresponsible people (Government) to continue to spend more money.

This should be pinned at the top forever.

 

[Bill Cosby]

It's a failure of church and community organizations and society as a whole that we don't take care of the poor and needy on a local level. It has opened the door for government to attempt to do it by taxing and spending in much more inefficient and ineffective ways.

I think you have the order backwards. It seems like the implementation of the federal welfare state has caused us to move away from the typical church and community help structures. Which is 100% by design.

 

[P19978]

It's a failure of church and community organizations and society as a whole that we don't take care of the poor and needy on a local level. It has opened the door for government to attempt to do it by taxing and spending in much more inefficient and ineffective ways.

Society has failed, but not the churches and community organizations.

Those folks work twice as hard with less resources than any govt entity.

 

[wkycatfan]

I think you have the order backwards. It seems like the implementation of the federal welfare state has caused us to move away from the typical church and community help structures. Which is 100% by design.

You could be right. We, society as a whole, need to be more generous toward the poor and needy, or assisting those good organizations who are. It's the best way IMO.

 

[fuzz77]

The biggest problem in voting now is that many really do not care so much about the issues as they do with social likability and what is trending. Hillary despite all of her faults and corruption has a very good chance to win because she is a woman. The trend with a lot of todays youth is let's do something different and throw caution to the wind. Couple that with the old womens rights movement group of the 60's and 70's and we are ripe for another poor voting result in 2016. We have lost our focus on what is good for the country and are now just letting our feelings run the show.

I don't believe it has anything to do with her being a woman, it's that the GOP has allowed itself to be held captive by the right wing who can only argue over which one is the most conservative and bash Obama/Hillary.
Most Americans are not right wing or left wing...they are pretty solid in the middle. Hillary is a lot closer to the middle than are right wing Republicans. Now to most right wingers, anything left of them is loony-left...but to the other 75% of the people they see the difference between the far left like Bernie Sanders and moderates like Hillary. People will also remember that in the past 50 years there has only been one president produce a budget surplus...last name was Clinton.

 

[warrior-cat]

I don't believe it has anything to do with her being a woman, it's that the GOP has allowed itself to be held captive by the right wing who can only argue over which one is the most conservative and bash Obama/Hillary.
Most Americans are not right wing or left wing...they are pretty solid in the middle. Hillary is a lot closer to the middle than are right wing Republicans. Now to most right wingers, anything left of them is loony-left...but to the other 75% of the people they see the difference between the far left like Bernie Sanders and moderates like Hillary. People will also remember that in the past 50 years there has only been one president produce a budget surplus...last name was Clinton.

You are completely wrong. She has herself said that it was time to have a women president and that is all she has to run on and even she knows it. Funny how you and others either have no clue or are just so hell bent on keeping a democrat in office that you would sell you soul to do so. Her record as secretary of state is nothing to run on, moreover, something to run from. She has done nothing noteworthy of positive praise while serving in any capacity. Sorry fuzz but, you are either totally clueless or just as bad as those who would put her into office.

 

[Bill Cosby]

You could be right. We, society as a whole, need to be more generous toward the poor and needy, or assisting those good organizations who are. It's the best way IMO.

"Society as a whole" is just a segue into "we need another government program."

I do give to certain organizations. But, generally not a group that's just the "poor and needy". My taxes do enough to ensure that group stays dependent on the government as designed. Throwing additional money that way is just pissing into the wind.

We need to stop enabling the "poor and needy". No reason I, as an upper middle class adult, should plan on a number of children based on the life I can provde them, while fat ass Betty down the road can have 8 kids from different fathers without giving a shit where support is going to come from.


Which brings us to my plan to offer lump sum cash payments for sterilizations if I had Obama's power as dictator.

 

[fuzz77]

You are completely wrong. She has herself said that it was time to have a women president and that is all she has to run on and even she knows it. Funny how you and others either have no clue or are just so hell bent on keeping a democrat in office that you would sell you soul to do so. Her record as secretary of state is nothing to run on, moreover, something to run from. She has done nothing noteworthy of positive praise while serving in any capacity. Sorry fuzz but, you are either totally clueless or just as bad as those who would put her into office.

Your opinion dude. And no, you are wrong that I am "hell bent on keeping a democrat in office". You have to give me a better option! I could really not care less about political party but I won't vote for someone on either extreme.
And sure, Hillary is going to use the "woman president" angle but I don't believe that is why most people will vote for her...hell, as many will vote against her for that same reason.

 

[Bill Cosby]

I could really not care less about political party but I won't vote for someone on either extreme.

Did you not vote for Obama?

 

[jamo0001]

The American people first became irreversibly addicted to entitlements in the wake of the Depression. I don't think religious charities, much less institutions, were at all responsible for or even capable of staving off that transition.

All the Great Society stuff was a natural progression of what FDR got rolling

 

[fuzz77]

Did you not vote for Obama?

I did in 2008. In 2012 I voted Libertarian. In 2008 I considered McCain but his selection of Palin told me who was pulling the strings.

 

[P19978]

Your opinion dude. And no, you are wrong that I am "hell bent on keeping a democrat in office". You have to give me a better option! I could really not care less about political party but I won't vote for someone on either extreme.
And sure, Hillary is going to use the "woman president" angle but I don't believe that is why most people will vote for her...hell, as many will vote against her for that same reason.

You're vastly underestimating the power of white liberal guilt, although in this case it will be gender based rather than race based.

 

[fuzz77]

You're vastly underestimating the power of white liberal guilt, although in this case it will be gender based rather than race based.

And you are vastly underestimating the value of a decent candidate. If the GOP would offer a decent moderate candidate they would win in a landslide.
There appear to be two camps...those who tell us all the problems with Obama/Hillary, and those who actually look at the options. If the best thing you have to sell is that you aren't someone else...you've got nothing to sell.

Nobody I've talked with is thrilled with Hillary but they see her as the lesser of the evils. The right wing of the GOP is doing more damage to their election chances (on a federal level) than anything the Democrats could ever do.

 

[warrior-cat]

Your opinion dude. And no, you are wrong that I am "hell bent on keeping a democrat in office". You have to give me a better option! I could really not care less about political party but I won't vote for someone on either extreme.
And sure, Hillary is going to use the "woman president" angle but I don't believe that is why most people will vote for her...hell, as many will vote against her for that same reason.

Any option is better than Hillary and your postings in the past have already shown your leanings and they are very far left. Everyone here knows that so, stop with the better option crap because you would vote for anything leaning left regardless of how bad they were.

 

[Bill Cosby]

If anyone says they view Hilary as "the lesser of the evils", their opinion on candidates should immediately be disregarded.

Hilary Clinton is the epitome of what is wrong with this country to the nth degree.

No one who would actually vote for Hilary Clinton would ever entertain the thought of voting for a Republican. And if you really think the choice is between Hilary (or whoever the Dems corronate) and the winner of the R primary, then you are also what is wrong with this country. Just write in "Wet Piece of Shit" on the ballot instead of asking one of them to go to Washington and accept taxpayer money to represent your country.

 

[warrior-cat]

And you are vastly underestimating the value of a decent candidate. If the GOP would offer a decent moderate candidate they would win in a landslide.
There appear to be two camps...those who tell us all the problems with Obama/Hillary, and those who actually look at the options. If the best thing you have to sell is that you aren't someone else...you've got nothing to sell.

Nobody I've talked with is thrilled with Hillary but they see her as the lesser of the evils. The right wing of the GOP is doing more damage to their election chances (on a federal level) than anything the Democrats could ever do.

See this is what I am talking about. Hypocritical post here. Hillary is telling us that isn't it time we had a woman president in the office but, will not answer any questions concerning anything else that she is affiliated with thus, giving you the impression that she is selling you that she is not a man (someone else). Enjoy the Crow.

 

[wkycatfan]

"Society as a whole" is just a segue into "we need another government program."

Not what I meant at all. I'm talking about individuals and/or local groups willingly giving of time/money toward people in need, especially where there is no family support.

BTW, even though I also give a meager amount of my time and money, I'm looking in the mirror at myself when I say these things.

 

[fuzz77]

See this is what I am talking about. Hypocritical post here. Hillary is telling us that isn't it time we had a woman president in the office but, will not answer any questions concerning anything else that she is affiliated with thus, giving you the impression that she is selling you that she is not a man (someone else). Enjoy the Crow.

Again you don't get it...you should spend less time listening to Limbaugh, Levine, Hannity, et al and get out and meet and talk to real people.

 

[warrior-cat]

Again you don't get it...you should spend less time listening to Limbaugh, Levine, Hannity, et al and get out and meet and talk to real people.

Don't listen to any of those so, not a problem here. I am basing this on your normal posting which now you seem to be running from. Good Luck.

 

[fuzz77]

If anyone says they view Hilary as "the lesser of the evils", their opinion on candidates should immediately be disregarded.

Hilary Clinton is the epitome of what is wrong with this country to the nth degree.

No one who would actually vote for Hilary Clinton would ever entertain the thought of voting for a Republican. And if you really think the choice is between Hilary (or whoever the Dems corronate) and the winner of the R primary, then you are also what is wrong with this country. Just write in "Wet Piece of Shit" on the ballot instead of asking one of them to go to Washington and accept taxpayer money to represent your country.

I have voted 3rd party...the equivalent to "Wet Piece of Shit" at least 4 times that I can recall. That said, you know and I know that the choice, the winner will be between the Democratic nominee and the GOP nominee. H. Ross Perot had a shot at breaking that death grip the two parties have on the election process but he went all nutty.
Half the people are hard core Republicans or Democrats and will back their candidate regardless, the other half are independent. Elections at the federal level are won in the middle which requires doing more than just talking down the other candidate.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Obama is proof positive that Presidential elections are not won in the middle.

Presidential elections are won by convincing enough of the retarded public that the other guy is worse than you.



Edit: And I really don't even know what "in the middle" means. I was just assuming it meant not radical one way or the other. "The middle" is so far left at this point, and mildly right position is labeled extreme. So good jod Dems and media on shifting the paradigm.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

President Obama trying to bully the Supreme Court ahead of their decision on Obama care subsidies?http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...never-have-taken-up-health-law-case-in-blunt/

 

[fuzz77]

Obama is proof positive that Presidential elections are not won in the middle.

Presidential elections are won by convincing enough of the retarded public that the other guy is worse than you.

Edit: And I really don't even know what "in the middle" means. I was just assuming it meant not radical one way or the other. "The middle" is so far left at this point, and mildly right position is labeled extreme. So good jod Dems and media on shifting the paradigm.

Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't know the middle or would consider the middle, extreme?
You demonstrate the problem with being on one end of the political spectrum...the belief that the middle is anything but exactly that...where most people's political leanings lay.
Ahhh, that devil media! Yeah, let's shoot the messenger. Funny, half the "media" I've seen over Caitlin/Bruce Jenner has been people complaining about the very subject which only leads to more discussion and more media coverage.

 

[wkycatfan]

The American people first became irreversibly addicted to entitlements in the wake of the Depression. I don't think religious charities, much less institutions, were at all responsible for or even capable of staving off that transition.

All the Great Society stuff was a natural progression of what FDR got rolling

Probably true. Some of the New Deal stuff at the beginning was good IMO. Put some regulations and safeguards in place, as well as lifted the morale of the country with public works. FDR got out of control on the domestic front after a while IMO (tried to pack the supreme court), until WWII started, where FDR provided great leadership. This also was largely responsible for pulling the country out the depression.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't know the middle or would consider the middle, extreme?

I think we should lower taxes. I think we should cut all federal spending. I especially think we should cut entitlements stop enabling generational generational poverty. I think we should eliminate subsidies. I don't give a shit if gay people get married. I want the federal government out of marriage all together. I don't give a shit about the legalization of drugs, legalize it all for all I care. I'd prefer all illegal aliens be deported along with their children. I am fine with abortion at any point (though wouldn't lobby for it myself). I think we should drop all foreign aid to $0 and make countries reapply for any and all amounts. I wanted the Patriot Act or any iteration of it gone.

So please, tell me where I fall on the spectrum.

You told me the middle wins federal elections. Please tell me how Obama is more "middle" than I am since, you know, he's won the past two biggest federal elections. Yes, if Obama is "the middle" then it's far left extreme.

Or maybe, just maybe, "the middle" can't be defined at all, and it's an issue by issue thing.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Republicans haven't done real well with running Moderates. Ford, Bush1, Dole, McCain and Romney. Only one was elected and lost in the reelection.

 

[Deeeefense]

Republicans haven't done real well with running Moderates. Ford, Bush1, Dole, McCain and Romney. Only one was elected and lost in the reelection.

I guarantee you it wasn't becasue they were "too moderate".

 

[fuzz77]

I think we should lower taxes. I think we should cut all federal spending. I especially think we should cut entitlements stop enabling generational generational poverty. I think we should eliminate subsidies. I don't give a shit if gay people get married. I want the federal government out of marriage all together. I don't give a shit about the legalization of drugs, legalize it all for all I care. I'd prefer all illegal aliens be deported along with their children. I am fine with abortion at any point (though wouldn't lobby for it myself). I think we should drop all foreign aid to $0 and make countries reapply for any and all amounts. I wanted the Patriot Act or any iteration of it gone.

So please, tell me where I fall on the spectrum.

You told me the middle wins federal elections. Please tell me how Obama is more "middle" than I am since, you know, he's won the past two biggest federal elections. Yes, if Obama is "the middle" then it's far left extreme.

Or maybe, just maybe, "the middle" can't be defined at all, and it's an issue by issue thing.

Bill, you seem to be pretty centrist in your personal beliefs. The problem is that the right wing wishes to impose their mores on everyone else. They want to reverse Roe v Wade, outlaw all abortions and make that an issue. They want to make an issue over gay marriage, etc... I agree with you on most of what you wrote...I don't require that anyone agree with me on most issues but if your aim is to remove/restrict my choices...I ain't going there.

Where we may disagree...I say "may" because I think it would be a long discussion to hammer out the differences...would be cutting taxes, should be a goal but until spending is controlled I personally think they should raise taxes to the point that it balances the budget. At that point tax cuts would have to be paired with equal spending cuts. In essence, a balanced budget amendment. Also with immigration, fix the problems of why they must com illegally and severely punish those who hire illegal workers. Most come illegally because the process to come legally is closed to so many. I don't care that they come, make it easy enough that it isn't worth the risk they currently take and it allows them to easily become tax payers.

 

[P19978]

And you are vastly underestimating the value of a decent candidate. If the GOP would offer a decent moderate candidate they would win in a landslide.
There appear to be two camps...those who tell us all the problems with Obama/Hillary, and those who actually look at the options. If the best thing you have to sell is that you aren't someone else...you've got nothing to sell.

Nobody I've talked with is thrilled with Hillary but they see her as the lesser of the evils. The right wing of the GOP is doing more damage to their election chances (on a federal level) than anything the Democrats could ever do.

So you're saying we should nominate the GOP version of Obama (an empty suit). Heck why not just pull some minority woman off the streets and make her the nominee... amiright?

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

I guarantee you it wasn't becasue they were "too moderate".

They weren't exactly the best, rather boring. Point was when Republicans nominated those to the right of those listed, they won. Pointing this out because Fuzz said Republicans needed to nominate a Moderate.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Mexicans are not running across the border because the process for legal immigration is difficult. It's because the process for being an illegal alien is very easy, very beneficial compared to living in Mexico and has no repercussions. This administration is doing all it can to promote the influx of illegal aliens over our borders.

And no, I would never in a million years agree to a tax increase with promised spending cuts in the future. We've all seen how that works out. It's (realistically) impossible to tax Americans enough to balance the budget. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.


There's absolutely zero way Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. No chance that ever happens. That case is about as grounded in our common law system as anything we've ever seen. And a Constitutional amendment will never happen. You'll be free to murder babies as long as our country exists.

Gay marriage is another dumb ass issue. You have to either remove the federal government from marriage completely (i.e. stop treating married americans differently for tax policy, etc.), or realize you cannot logically prevent any person in the US from marrying another person in the US. I still would love to hear why a son can't marry his rich dad on his death bed simply to get the spousal exemption for the estate tax. If that's two consenting adults, why is incest bad? And how bout polygamy? Why can't a father marry all his children if he loves them (and wants to avoid the estate tax)?

 

[fuzz77]

Mexicans are not running across the border because the process for legal immigration is difficult. It's because the process for being an illegal alien is very easy, very beneficial compared to living in Mexico and has no repercussions. This administration is doing all it can to promote the influx of illegal aliens over our borders.

And no, I would never in a million years agree to a tax increase with promised spending cuts in the future. We've all seen how that works out. It's (realistically) impossible to tax Americans enough to balance the budget. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.


There's absolutely zero way Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. No chance that ever happens. That case is about as grounded in our common law system as anything we've ever seen. And a Constitutional amendment will never happen. You'll be free to murder babies as long as our country exists.

Gay marriage is another dumb ass issue. You have to either remove the federal government from marriage completely (i.e. stop treating married americans differently for tax policy, etc.), or realize you cannot logically prevent any person in the US from marrying another person in the US. I still would love to hear why a son can't marry his rich dad on his death bed simply to get the spousal exemption for the estate tax. If that's two consenting adults, why is incest bad? And how bout polygamy? Why can't a father marry all his children if he loves them (and wants to avoid the estate tax)?

Having worked a great deal in Mexico I'll respectfully disagree with your assessment of their motives and the hoops through which they must jump to attain a legal visa and green card to work. I agreed with you until I spent 8 years of my life being there, getting to know many bright Mexican nationals who sought legal passage. Yes, it is easy to cross the border. It is very difficult and costly to obtain a green card.

A son can't marry his mother or sister either. Incest is bad because of the biological issues that exist when two people who share the same genes have children. Sure, same sex siblings/parent-child wouldn't be at risk for such abnormalities...but a line has to be drawn somewhere, that's where I draw it. I have no problem with polygamy as long as all parties are of age and consenting...and not siblings!.

 

[Bill Cosby]

1. I certainly doubt if you were on an expat assignment somewhere in Mexico that you were working with the illegal alien demographic. I didn't say it wasn't hard or there weren't hoops to jump through. There are reasons it's difficult though. We can't just hand any poor asshole who wants to drop a baby on American soil a green card. But that's effectively what we're doing now.

2. I guess to take a page from the left's book...you are a bigot. It's really that simple. You can rationalize it however you want. But why should gay people get certain rights that brothers and sisters don't get? Or is it, you're taking rights away from brothers and sisters and moms and dads? I lose track of the ways the left rationalizes keeping the federal government in marriage, but discriminating against a group of people they don't agree with.

 

[warrior-cat]

Bill, you seem to be pretty centrist in your personal beliefs. The problem is that the right wing wishes to impose their mores on everyone else. They want to reverse Roe v Wade, outlaw all abortions and make that an issue. They want to make an issue over gay marriage, etc... I agree with you on most of what you wrote...I don't require that anyone agree with me on most issues but if your aim is to remove/restrict my choices...I ain't going there.

Where we may disagree...I say "may" because I think it would be a long discussion to hammer out the differences...would be cutting taxes, should be a goal but until spending is controlled I personally think they should raise taxes to the point that it balances the budget. At that point tax cuts would have to be paired with equal spending cuts. In essence, a balanced budget amendment. Also with immigration, fix the problems of why they must com illegally and severely punish those who hire illegal workers. Most come illegally because the process to come legally is closed to so many. I don't care that they come, make it easy enough that it isn't worth the risk they currently take and it allows them to easily become tax payers.

How can you raise taxes when spending is out of control. It is like giving more alcohol to an alcoholic in the hopes that he would stop drinking. Just absurd.

 

[warrior-cat]

Having worked a great deal in Mexico I'll respectfully disagree with your assessment of their motives and the hoops through which they must jump to attain a legal visa and green card to work. I agreed with you until I spent 8 years of my life being there, getting to know many bright Mexican nationals who sought legal passage. Yes, it is easy to cross the border. It is very difficult and costly to obtain a green card.

A son can't marry his mother or sister either. Incest is bad because of the biological issues that exist when two people who share the same genes have children. Sure, same sex siblings/parent-child wouldn't be at risk for such abnormalities...but a line has to be drawn somewhere, that's where I draw it. I have no problem with polygamy as long as all parties are of age and consenting...and not siblings!.

That is where you draw it but, you have a problem with other people drawing it in other places. OK then.

 

[From-the-stands]

2. I guess to take a page from the left's book...you are a bigot. It's really that simple. You can rationalize it however you want. But why should gay people get certain rights that brothers and sisters don't get? Or is it, you're taking rights away from brothers and sisters and moms and dads? I lose track of the ways the left rationalizes keeping the federal government in marriage, but discriminating against a group of people they don't agree with.

Are you asking why can't a brother marry his sister? Why does the argument have to shift to the absurd?

 

[Bill Cosby]

Why can a man marry a man, but a brother can't marry his brother?