What If ?????

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]pookie wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
The government shouldn’t be in the retirement business either. There’s quite a few operations that the government shouldn’t be involved in, but…I guess that depends on your political ideology.

Seems to me that most of the right’s policies tend to maintain or increase social injustices and inequalities. I’m all for responsible individuals who take charge of their own lives; but I also think that at some point, there’s a minimum that should be guaranteed by a society that considers itself just and fair.
[/quote]

I think a lot of people have forgotten the lessons about what happens to a society when the middle class disappears and everybody is either rich or poor.

When you don’t make it easy for poor people to become educated and enter the working middle class you end up with some things that are very costly.

Not the least of which are drugs and crime.

The right wing really needs to stop pretending that everyone who doesn’t make it big is stupid and unwilling to work hard. This is also a form of elitism, and is something they love to decry.

So, the question then becomes how to do this efficiently. I mean, society always imposes some cost on it’s members, there is no escape from that, but the lower the burden the better.

You also need to recognize that some things that are being decried as expensive, such as schools, are in investment in your society. It’s part of how shared ideals and patriotic feelings are developed, through shared experiences and understanding of your own country.

If you eliminate this socialization tool you are likely to lose your “melting pot” and end up with a split society. Even a conservative should recognize that there is more at stake in the long term health of a country than a few dollars in your pocket right now.

The total size of the economy, the coherence of the populace with respect to patriotic ideals, the satisfaction of the populace with their economic opportunities, and so on. All of these are somewhat less noticeable than an extra hundred or two in your wallet, but if you fatten your wallet and ignore these, you will personally do well at the expense of your nation.

Finally, I agree, many of the original social programs created were invented in a different era, when people had work ethics and nobody could imagine someone taking advantage of the system. The reasons the programs were created still exist, but solutions that aren’t naive and wasteful must be found.

Don’t fall for the all or nothing divisionist thinking. The government shouldn’t be in the retirement business, but it also shouldn’t be in the business of letting huge numbers of it’s citizens twist and blow in the wind needlessly.

Don’t let your ideologies, of either stripe, get in the way of the real human issues of a strong and sustainable society.

22

Before Social Security, something like two-thirds of our senior citizens lived in poverty.

If you want to get rid of Social Security (probably the most efficiently run government program ever) that’s fine… make sure you’ve got plenty of room at home, for when your elderly parents move in with you.

Try to pay attention to the news, Steveo. Bush is the biggest spending president in 40 years. Bigger spender than Clinton or Carter. The GOP-controlled Congress raised the federal spending cap 5 times, in 6 years. Your partisan rhetoric doesn’t match up with reality. Democrats are tax and spend, Republicans are borrow and spend. Which is more fiscally responsible?

23

Stevo, here is what Nancy Pelosi has proposed. Here’s your chance to discuss it point-by-point, and object to the specifics if you like. I’ll be curious to see exactly what you object to. I wonder if all you care about is tax cuts for the wealthy? Please comment on which of Pelosi’s ideas you think are good (if any), and which ideas are bad, and short answers are fine.

Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step.

Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.

Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above “a certain level.” She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

24

[quote]pookie wrote:
In your 230 odd years history, how many times has it happened that the 3rd in line to be president actually did go on to eventually become president?

Assuming that Pelosi couldn’t do the job, couldn’t she simply do like Bush does? Read the fucking speeches she’d be given and avoid answering questions she hadn’t been prepped for in advance? It’s obvious from Bush that any stupid moron can hold that office, no matter how much a fuck-up his previous record shows him/her to be.
[/quote]

President Bush has been an outstanding president. He has kept us from attack since 9/11, has defeated the Taliban, freed 50 million Iraqs from the despot Sadaam, has jump started our economy by lowering taxes which has produced record corporate profits (Dow over 12000), low inflation, low interest rates loans…etc.

Pelosi? Don’t make me laugh.

25

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Democrats will raise our taxes – because they always do, and will cut defense spending – because they always do – but they will increase social welfare programs – because they always do.

So spending less on armaments and more on your very own people is a bad thing? Okaayyy…

[/quote]

Yes, spending less on defense and more on social welfare is an historically proven recipie for disaster.

Remember the Jimmy Carter years? Hmmmm?

26

[quote]pookie wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I think what Steveo is trying to say, is that the government should not be in the charity business. They’ve shown themselves to not be very efficient at it.

Why not work at being more efficient at it then? For a lot of people, the choice will be between inefficient government help and nothing at all.

The government shouldn’t be in the retirement business either. There’s quite a few operations that the government shouldn’t be involved in, but…I guess that depends on your political ideology.

Seems to me that most of the right’s policies tend to maintain or increase social injustices and inequalities. I’m all for responsible individuals who take charge of their own lives; but I also think that at some point, there’s a minimum that should be guaranteed by a society that considers itself just and fair. [/quote]

So, if a person doesn’t want to work, but stay home, make babies they cannot afford, watch TV and just lazy around – the rest of us has to pay for that to be “just and fair?” Nonsense. [quote]

Following your logic of getting the government out of every business where it’s not efficient, shouldn’t you also quit that war business?[/quote]

Perhaps being Canadian, you are ignorant of our Constitution. I would advise you to ‘google’ it and read it. It is the business of government to protect the people. In fact, that is the business of government constitutionally! Retirement programs, prescription drug programs, and the like are not the business of the government – well at least not the Federal government. The liberals are great in twisting this all around to make it seem like the primary purpose of government is to provide for the people. WRONG! The primary business of the government is to protect its people so that they can provide for themselves. [quote]

For all the untold billions that get swallowed up in those endeavors, the results sure aren’t there. Was is worth 1.5 trillions, over half a million civilian lives, and nearly 3000 of your own troops just to get rid of Saddam? Wouldn’t a “retirement gift” of 10 billions to have him go live out the rest of his life on some island in the Pacific have achieved the same result and a lot more cheaply?

[/quote]

27

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Before Social Security, something like two-thirds of our senior citizens lived in poverty.

If you want to get rid of Social Security (probably the most efficiently run government program ever) that’s fine… make sure you’ve got plenty of room at home, for when your elderly parents move in with you.

The only problem with what you say is that the Democrats have been, and still are the biggest spenders ever.

Try to pay attention to the news, Steveo. Bush is the biggest spending president in 40 years. Bigger spender than Clinton or Carter. The GOP-controlled Congress raised the federal spending cap 5 times, in 6 years. Your partisan rhetoric doesn’t match up with reality. Democrats are tax and spend, Republicans are borrow and spend. Which is more fiscally responsible? [/quote]

Families should provide for their own elderly. That is exactly the point. It is not right to dump your elderly parents on the rest of us so you can take trips to Europe or wherever. Charity begins first at home, where it belongs.

I agree that Bush is a big spender, and I have said that I disagree with it. The problem is that in order for him to curb spending, he would have had to slash the social welfare programs, which unfortunately, he had no stomach to fight for.

28

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Stevo, here is what Nancy Pelosi has proposed. Here’s your chance to discuss it point-by-point, and object to the specifics if you like. I’ll be curious to see exactly what you object to. I wonder if all you care about is tax cuts for the wealthy? Please comment on which of Pelosi’s ideas you think are good (if any), and which ideas are bad, and short answers are fine.

Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”[/quote]

What does that exactly mean?[quote]

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.[/quote]

Which ones, in particular, would she enact that have not been followed. If there are such recommendations that have not been implemented, why have they not? Also, do we ever take EVERYTHING a panel gives us in the way of recommendations? Since when do we enact everything? [quote]

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. [/quote]

Great, so the unemployment rate will rise as fewer people get hired since employers will not hurt their own bottom lines. Also, if they don’t slash employment, prices will rise and people will have less purchasing power. This is a hidden tax on the middle class – the same group of people that the libs say they wish to help. Typcial lib and typically wrong for America. [quote]

Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. [/quote]

Since when does Congress play with interest rates on a specific group of people regardless of the overall economic factors that set interest rates? Why not cut rates for first time homebuyers. In fact, why don’t we tax all of the rich and then buy nice homes for the poor? Hey, better yet, why don’t we take the homes of the rich – you know by emminent domain and just give the homes to the poor. This way, the poor can be the rich and see how it feels to be taxed to death and stomped on at every turn.[quote]

Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.[/quote]

Ah, yes, the first step to Socialized medicine. Of course, the government must be involved with this – afterall, drug companies are bad. Profits are bad. Typically liberal and typically wrong for America. [quote]

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.[/quote]

Yes, lets do more with the remains of our dead unborn. Why not? After all, they are dead, right? Let’s benefit from those we kill. Typcially liberal, and typically wrong for America. [quote]

All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority. [/quote]

Hey, that means higher taxes. Typically liberal and typically wrong for America. [quote]

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above “a certain level.” She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.[/quote]

Again, higher taxes! Typically liberal, and typically wrong for America.

There you have it Brad, point by painful point. I appreciate you listing the points here, because it only strengthens my belief that the libs cannot take this governemnt over. It will be a disaster.

29

Well Steve your answer was too much of a dumb rant to respond to. “Typically Liberal!” is not you trying to have an honest discussion. Most of your replies were spin, or just objections to real positive measures, based strictly on your strident ideology. But I will answer your first 2 points, because you seem to be honestly ignorant on the issues.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”

What does that exactly mean?[/quote]

Steveo there are many concrete proposals that have been made, about how to clean up washington. Did you know the number of lobbyists has more than doubled since Bush took office?

Think there is any connection between lobbyists and all the corruption investigations and arrests that have been made (Jack Abramoff, David Safavian, Bob Ney, Randy Cunningham, I assume you know who all these people are. Hint, they are all government officials in prison or awaiting sentencing).

One proposal is to prevent government officials from leaving a government job to immediately work for a lobbyist. One proposal would require a two year lapse, before that was allowed. This would prevent a “revolving door” effect that we curently have, where government employees leave a position to lobby the same office that they worked for last week. This law would prevent corruption or at least make the process more honest. This is just one example of what Pelosi has in mind.

[quote]Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Which ones, in particular, would she enact that have not been followed. If there are such recommendations that have not been implemented, why have they not? Also, do we ever take EVERYTHING a panel gives us in the way of recommendations? Since when do we enact everything? [/quote]

Well I’m sorry to say you are really uninformed. Do you really live in NYC? If so, you must live in a cave. The 9-11 commission gave Bush FAILING GRADES on enacting the committee recommendations. (D’s and F’s across the board on every recommendation, except one C). I guess you never read the newspaper, or watch the news, because this was in the news. Not only that, but Bush originally promised that all their recommendations would be followed. And I don’t see any point of spending money on an investigative committee, and then ignoring their findings.

Is it really your position that we should NOT implement the security recommendations of the (bipartisan) 9-11 committee? If so, then please NEVER refer to yourself as a “tough on security conservative”… because you would be lying. That’s being WEAK on security.

Your other arguments were all straw men (like when you say raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy, no it’s not) or just vague Dem-bashing. So I won’t bother replying to those points. Plus this is already long enough.

30

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
President Bush has been an outstanding president. He has kept us from attack since 9/11,[/quote]

Yeah. Too bad he came into office on 9/12, otherwise he might have been able to prevent 9/11 too.

Really? So who’s giving the NATO troops so much trouble in Afghanistan? Ghosts? Zombies?

…and left them an Iraq where between 50-100 people die daily in various car bombings, suicide attacks, etc.

Why, oh why aren’t they grateful.

And it’s “Saddam” goddammit.

Don’t forget the record deficits and debt. Oh, right, you’ll be dead when it’s time to account for that, so why would you care, right?

You laugh a lot, but don’t seem to have anything to bolster your argument. So basically, it’s your opinion that she’d make a lousy president. But all your other opinions are complete shit, so much in fact, that I’m inclined to believe that Pelosi might be the next Lincoln.

You also didn’t answer the question: How many times has it happened that the 3rd in line eventually became president? So? How many times, Steveo? Or would you rather not answer because it castrates your initial premise and makes you look like the loon you are?

31

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
So, if a person doesn’t want to work, but stay home, make babies they cannot afford, watch TV and just lazy around – the rest of us has to pay for that to be “just and fair?” Nonsense. [/quote]

Nothing says that you have to give them money with no strings attached. You can incentivize them to get training/education so that they can go out an better their situation.

I’m also not talking about giving them so much money that they can afford the latest HDTV and two cars in the driveway.

Your alternative is what? Let the kids starve because they had the misfortune of picking lousy parents?

That some people will try to abuse the system is a given. The solution is not to abolish the system; it’s to try and make it available to those who really need it while reducing as much as possible the freeloaders.

“Protecting the people” is a lot different from invading foreign nations pre-emptively. I know you think Saddam was massing his tank divisions along your borders, but in reality he posed very little threat to any nation after 1991.

Afghanistan at least had a better justification: You wanted to eradicate known terrorists training camps and capture/kill as many terrorists as possible before they could spread and hit again.

But that isn’t what you did. You toppled the Taliban, set up more or less a puppet government, and left for Iraq. Wonderful. Now the Afghan warlords are political players, NATO troops have gone from a peacekeeping mission to an active combat role and the Taliban in the south are unfortunately making headway against NATO. Poppy production is at an all time high, etc.

But Bush is doing a great job. Right.

If you were to cut out all those programs, how many elderly would die? Have you seen he cost of many of the medication they have to take to stay alive? Many of them wouldn’t be able to afford them, and neither would their family. What’s your solution? Everyone goes out and gets a second or third job? Who raises and educates the kids while the whole family is out working 90 hours a week?

32

Pookie,

You and I both know that reality is not allowed inside Steveo’s tiny little cranium.

It’s a law of physics man, no use fighting it.

33

[quote]vroom wrote:
Steveo, only a true buttmunch like yourself would get excited about the third person in the chain of command having the possibility of becoming president.

Among other things, even in a worst case scenario, your country has (well, should have) a strong set of checks and balances and the rule of law to keep things under control.

I’m going to guess though that you know very little about Nancy Pelosi and are simply running on about some scare tactic you’ve bought hook line and sinker due to partisan hackery.[/quote]

Vroom,

Quit tossing salad long enough to give an intelligent response. Oh, wait, I forgot…

Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to mop bathrooms in Congress, let alone run the place. Have you guys read some of her stuff? She’s perfectly reflects her district, though, gotta give her that.

34

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
So, if a person doesn’t want to work, but stay home, make babies they cannot afford, watch TV and just lazy around – the rest of us has to pay for that to be “just and fair?” Nonsense.

Nothing says that you have to give them money with no strings attached. You can incentivize them to get training/education so that they can go out an better their situation.

[/quote]

There is a thing called ‘taxes’. A bunch of libs convince the sheeple that they have a ‘right’ to the earnings of someone else. To make it palatable, we’re going to ‘incentivize’ them. Uhhh…yeah…that’ll work…

Amazing how libs/thugs think a club is a rational argument. Good work, Pooks!!

35

What a surpise.

Homophobes Steve and HH are afraid of Pelosi.

That puts them in Haggard’s camp.

36

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There is a thing called ‘taxes’. A bunch of libs convince the sheeple that they have a ‘right’ to the earnings of someone else.[/quote]

Even you recognize the need for government to insure law and protection. Taxes are unavoidable.

You don’t object to the US’s obscene defense budget, the highest in the world, but are against every social programs because “people should fend for themselves?”

There’s something seriously out of whack with you, man. I think your greed has sold your compassion for a meager profit.

Because everyone who’s poor is so by choice. They’re lazy. No one ever finds themselves in a difficult situation; no one ever breaks down because they get overwhelmed by a tragedy. Everyone gets to pick good parents and have great role models to live by.

[quote]Amazing how libs/thugs think a club is a rational argument. Good work, Pooks!!
[/quote]

Every government on earth rules with a club. Don’t bullshit me with your ridiculous arguments. There are no, none not-a-one government anywhere who doesn’t reserve the right to exert violence for themselves.

With that bullshit shoveled aside, it’s all a matter of how much tax is perceived, and what is done with it.

You support ignoring your own countrymen so that you can better meddle abroad. I think that’s indecent, callous and a recipe for disaster.

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Quit tossing salad long enough to give an intelligent response. Oh, wait, I forgot…[/quote]

How’bout someone gives me an intelligent response on how many times it has already happened that 3rd in line to be president actually became president?

It’s got to be pretty frequent, or else the whole point is moot from the start.

So? Anyone? Five times? Ten times? How many?

38

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to mop bathrooms in Congress, let alone run the place. Have you guys read some of her stuff? She’s perfectly reflects her district, though, gotta give her that.
[/quote]

You guys panicking over Pelosi are pussies. Get a grip! Not qualified? What’s the matter, she isn’t crooked enough or gay enough for you?

39

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
First of all, Pelosi becoming Speaker is not guaranteed, if the Dems win the House. She has to be elected to the post by her peers. There is some talk that Murtha would like to be Speaker too. I guess you might not know how that works. You should spend more time reading about Congress, and less time spouting off about things you dont understand.

Anyway, moving forward, Nancy Pelosi already announced her plan for the first 100 hours, if she does become Speaker of the House. It sounds pretty good to me:

Hastert has a reputation for being out of touch and disengaged, as Speaker. After 8 years of Bush incompetence, I would prefer the next President to be someone who is sharp and focused.

Also, I guess you haven’t heard there are some rumors floating around that Dennis Hastert may be gay. Hastert lives full time with his chief-of-staff. And when Mrs. Hastert comes to Washington to visit her husband, she stays in a hotel… alone. I don’t know what else there is to the rumors beyond that, I assume that is just the tip of the iceberg.

So to turn your question around, how would you feel about the first gay President, if he was a Republican? Would you be okay with that?[/quote]

Wait. Hastert’s gay? Sounds like you - the enlightened liberal democrat - are the one who has a problem with that. But that’s typical isn’t it? Those free-thinking, inclusive liberals are always the first to throw stones at homosexuals. As long as their conservative homosexuals. This also applies to race. There is no such thing as racism against blacks. As long as the black in question is conservative/republican. If THAT’S the case…well…he’s not really BLACK now is he?

40

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There is a thing called ‘taxes’. A bunch of libs convince the sheeple that they have a ‘right’ to the earnings of someone else.

Because everyone who’s poor is so by choice. They’re lazy. No one ever finds themselves in a difficult situation; no one ever breaks down because they get overwhelmed by a tragedy. Everyone gets to pick good parents and have great role models to live by.

Amazing how libs/thugs think a club is a rational argument. Good work, Pooks!!

Every government on earth rules with a club. Don’t bullshit me with your ridiculous arguments. There are no, none not-a-one government anywhere who doesn’t reserve the right to exert violence for themselves.

With that bullshit shoveled aside, it’s all a matter of how much tax is perceived, and what is done with it.

You support ignoring your own countrymen so that you can better meddle abroad. I think that’s indecent, callous and a recipe for disaster.
[/quote]

Pookie, you just said we can obtain a peaceful society with clubs and violence. What muck of contradictions allows this to function? Why does ‘need’, a lack, have a mortgage over production and ability? Compassion and understanding, maybe? What about some compassion for those who produce the bonanza, all at the point of your gun or clubs?

Libs…sheeesssshhhhh…unbelievable…