marks2065

what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload? It breaks up the voter base I remember when people would work hard or got made fun of or chastized, now those that don't work get coddled and given things. Well, among the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayer support were the bankers who precipitated the recession through their greed. On the whole I'd rather give $10 to a homeless unemployed person than $10Million to a Wall St. banker. If you look back you will see I was against tarp, stimulous and welfare. for some reason I think that everyone should contribute and not get handouts, but why would the left think that way.

If you think it is such a great life to be a freeloader, why don't you try doing it for two months? Try and live off welfare and foodstamps for 2 months. The concept that a majority of these people enjoy living like that is laughable. Sorry but I couldn't lower myself to be dependant on someone else, I was raised better than that.

Bill, is it wrong to feel that ALL people should contribute? How about we send some of these freeloaders over to your house for some free food and a place to sleep.

no you don't seem to understand how good resposible people are, I don't mind paying some taxes, just don't like paying taxes when some many don't. I don't feel me, or anyone has the right to not pay for things. If everyone pulled their wieght the job would be much easier on everyone. The problem is people like you that feel some do not have to contribute.

Republicans play the race card??? You are reaching here my friend he has to reach because he has nothing else.

\ they do they pay 90% of the bill already. we have 10% paying 90%. Time to shift some of the burden to the bottom 30% of the people.

what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload? It breaks up the voter base I remember when people would work hard or got made fun of or chastized, now those that don't work get coddled and given things.

what is wrong with having everybody share in the workload?

Even YOUR logic isn't that bad!! He's a politician... of COURSE he's a hypocrite. Oh, sorry. I thought they were just all liars. Romney's problem is that he has been to far left while governor of Mass and the reb's are having a difficult time accepting that. and yes you are correct that most politicians are hypocrits and liars.

Obviously, he never saw Star Trek II. I am all for a temporary raise in taxes as long as everybody pays including those that make less than 10k a year, until everybody pays a little no one else should have an increase. untill that time we will just need to reduce spending. But maybe you didn't see star trek III were the needs of the one (our country) outwiegh the needs of the many.(those paying no tax)

same people that are hiring now plus some that would start hiring because of the better, financially more conservative government. Why is it that nobody wants to do anything that might cause a little pain? sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the betterment of the many. Suck it up people, quit the fucking whining, not everyone can be a winner, that only happens in the dream world of the left.

I never said nobody would be affected

Which has nothing to do with 5 million additional unemployed.... there would not be 5mil unemployed if you reduced the budget and allowed the improved economy to hire them as you went. the first 5% would probaly be almost no or low number of layoffs just because the first thing to go would be the waste in government

Not sure what you mean with that sentence. Worse as in more employees? Worse as in ven more people unemployed? Worse as in a worse economic environment? I doubt you will find too many respectable economics who would agree that adding 5 million people to the ranks of the unemployed will speed up recovery. How exactly do you think that would work? If you cut government spending by 12% this year and 12% next year and did it at 1% per month, the economy would not even feel the change. the economy would actually improve and unemployment would drop as the cuts took place.

All of government needs to be cut by about 20%, including welfare and food stamps. You would be suprised how fast things would change once this happens. A good struggle is good for ones characture.

taking all off the programm that make more than 30k a year would save millions

Nothing is perfect. And if you try to get rid of all error and/or fraud in a program, you'll drive the cost to far higher than the money you save. Kind of like spending $6000 to replace the engine in a rusted out Pinto. Wendy P. sorry but the abuse and fraud is much larger than it should be and the qualifications are way to easy.

Agreed that accomplishing societal objectives is difficult. Especially so where there are no accepted principles for doing so. Our country has veered to the point where it's just fine to take money from people who work and give to those that don't. I think the Wall Street execs did SOME work. They still took a lot of money, though, from taxpayers like you and me. And who was stupid enough to give it to them? I think polosi had the gavel at the time. Who gives alot of money to the politicians, mostly the dem party?

And a great many are people that make over 30k a year or have family memebers that are not citizens or work for cash under the table thus showing a low income to qualify.

Yes they are what I think they are, free food for everyone that receives them, nothing more or less. What is being debated here is not what they are but whom they go to. Many that recieve food stamps don't need them or deserve them. Maybe they should buy food instead of a big screen tv, $250 a month cable bill, multiple phones (land line & cell phone for each memeber of a family down to the one in first grade) 5k in rims for the junk car they drive.

What the liberals on DZ.com don't want anyone to know is that it doesn't matter who said it or where it came from, it is true. If we keep handing out food stamps at the rate we are doing it the people will become dependant on them and forget how to earn money to pay for themselves. They like to spin things until the real meaning is lost. getting you running around looking for the source just moves the entire conversation from the words and then the meaning is lost.

that makes more sense than pro abortion anti death penalty. Kill the inocent kids but save the mass murderer. Death penalty, suicide, abortion, murder, caualties of war, etc. Apparent contradictions in approach are just that - apparent. To know if the person's beliefs are consistent requires knowing the principles behind them. If they have non-cntradicting principles that support each belief (for instance OK with abortion, against capital punishment), then there is nothing inconsistent going on. I understand alot of people don't like abortion or the death penalty or like abortion and the death penalty or don't like abortion but like the death penalty, but I do not (and I have even tried debating this) understand how some one can abort a baby but not kill a mass murderer.

that makes more sense than pro abortion anti death penalty. Kill the inocent kids but save the mass murderer.

Where do you see the right to prohibit drugs in the constitution? One place I see the right is in regards to religious ceremonies ... that whole separation of church and state that you keep referring to. PS: There wasn't anything in the constitution giving the right to use alcohol and yet they had to create a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. http://libertymaven.com/2009/10/06/drugs-and-the-constitution/7584/

Expecting not to have to pay premiums for specific conditions is not reasonable. It would be like young people asking to have their premium reduced by whatever premiums amounts are reflective of Alzheimer's and other diseases of old age. In a way, plans that have rating bands based on age already do that, but it reflects general utilization by age, not by excluding benefits for specific conditions. It's not really insurance if each person gets to pick the specifics they want to cover or not. It really needs to be an all in or fold thing or the cherry-picking becomes destructive to the pool. I understand what you are saying but then why make it an option on an individual policy?