marks2065

who get a loan to start the business from rich people

A parasite growing inside a woman doesn't change whose body it is whether amoeba, tape worm, or something with the genetic potential for humanity. You can only argue otherwise when you assume ensoulment occurs at the time of conception. Since the First Amendment dictates separation of church and state that can't serve as the basis for laws regarding the matter. I'm an atheist I don't believe in souls. Explain to me then why its okay for women to abort children but not for men. What I mean by men aborting children is that they'd be given the legal right to financially abort the child, no payments to the woman as alimony nor child support for the child. The only solid argument against that is that you can't sign away the child's rights, right to financial support from the parents. Why is it okay for women to violate the child's right to life but it is not okay for the man to violate the child's right to child support? because this isn't a war on women's rights it is a war on the pocket books of americans to pay for women to do what they want.

If history is any indication, what Romney believes is you can make more money destroying companies, than keeping them running. he didn't destroy companies, he divided and sold off the unprofitable ones. what about the ones that prospered? why no talk about that? the tens of thousands that have jobs thanks to Bain capital? being a financial person the companies came to him for help and many jobs were saved and many lost. but not because of Romney but because the company was not profitable. Romney ran Bain capital not the companies that came to bain for assistance.

He didn't call you disshonest, he called you self centered

Holding people accountable for their actions is the answer not giving them free stuff.

And this is what government is for. not actually giving out products and picking winners and loosers but to set guidelines for our society to keep it safe for the people. dependancy and slavery are the same thing, giving people things that are not earned is creating a dependancy that will soon consume this countries way of life and soon we will resemble places like africa or the middle east.

My USPA dues does not pay for canopy control courses, the student does.

the thread was about Romney's budget and I said that Obama didn't put one out before election. Someone shows us one that is out now and you go off. Maybe we need to wait until he is elected to see Romney's just like Obamas. Maybe we could get someone to even vote on Romney's unlike Obamas that his own party won't vote for.

Why is it my responsibility to pay for birthcontrol for someone? why is it the governments responsibilty to make people responsible? Maybe they should buy my skydiving gear so I can have fun without any consequences.

you mean the same budget that the dem's wouldn't vote for?

I didn't see any from Obama when he ran for president, he did give some close to elction time.

Your reading comprehension isn't so good is it? I was critisizing people for not bashing Obama for the same things they bashed Bush for and not doing anything during a disaster. Obama is all about robbing the rich and giving to the poor. he has alot of teams working on that one. As far as the deadbeat dads thing, once again the left is removing personal responsibility from people by paying for birthcontrol. he is saying go enjoy yourself and don't be responsible about it. holding people accountable for their actions would reduce the problems and save millions in free handouts to people, but then they wouldn't get the votes would they?

The huge increase in food stamps from the easing of requirements to collect them, paying off the unions at GM to save the union retirement packages but not the non union retirements at Delphi and the billions in tax exemptions for GM, the reductions in principle and interest payments for homeowners that defaulted but no help for the people that paid their mortgages, the 73 week extension on unemployment benifits to those willing to sit on the couch, and the ACA giving insurance to millions. Is this enough for you? no ? How about all his cronnies setting pretty after million dollar saleries they collected on bankrupt green technology companies like solyndra? Obama has so many people sucking on the government that they can't pay the bills. so what does he want to do? take more money from the producers. All these guys want to do is buy votes with the money they take from us. and the votes they are buying is from those sitting back and becoming dependant on the government. that is what free birth control is about, buying votes. If Obama really wanted to show how much he cared for women he could find much better things to go after than birthcontrol. Free birth control is just saying have all the sex you want and we will take care of the responsibilities of that. How about child support from deadbeat dads? making dads take a responsibility for thier children? how about child care so they can work?

see you got this backwards also, health care costs have everything to do with the costs of insurance.

If you don't want to defend your beliefs, just say so. Yes, please. The ACA gives millions free health insurance paid for by others, nobody should get free anything. Why would someone want to work and produce when they can sit on the couch and get food stamps, rent paid for, and free health insurance? sooner or later the system will collapse on itself and instead of having a few million in trouble we will have tens of millions in trouble. The people collecting these benifits are now slaves to the system because if they try to produce for themselves they loose most of the government handouts and they would be worse off. Lets get these people into jobs and support themselves. cut these slave making benifits and make them support themselves. the government would save billions and this country would be much more productive.

giving people insurance does not lower the cost of health care, the problem with health care is that it costs to much, name one thing in the ACA that lowered the cost of the doctor treating the patient.

Se I see things a litle differently than the left. I see Katrina as a disaster the the federal government helped to clean up. I see the PB oil spill and the drought as dissasters the federal government did nothing to help with. Could things have been better after Katrina? yes, the people there could have helped each other much more and the feds could have done better getting there, but doing nothing is what Obama is good at. He makes phone calls and sends letters but really does nothing. The big difference is how the media blasts some for trying and doesn't say hardly a word when others do nothing.

We have the same problem now, but it's just backdoored in. I agree that reducing the cost of healthcare would be great, but despite its name, the ACA is about health insurance, not healthcare. That would be great, too. I'm trying to get at what you think Obama has done to give people handouts. Repeating this line is not an answer. The ACA is one of the bigest handouts ever signed into law. it takes hundreds of billions of dollars and gives to others. Do you need more examples?

The main tax in the ACA is the tax on people who can afford health insurance, but choose not to. In that way, I suppose you're right, it taxes people who can afford health insurance. On the other hand, the beneficiary is not people who can't afford health insurance, it is people who can (and do). Right now we have to pay higher insurance premiums to cover people who don't have insurance. Making everyone get insurance should help reduce that burden on those of us with insurance. We have to pay higher premiums because health care is expensive and used by those who don't pay, reducing the cost of giving health care would lower premiums and more could afford insurance and that would reduce the cost of insurance even more. Oh I also said getting people a good paying job would help also. we don't need to give handouts we need to stop the government from wasting our money and making people dependant on the government.

You need to relearn reading comprehension, I said the ACA does aboslutely nothing to reduce the cost of giving health care. I did not say anthing about making companies pay for treatment of patients.

How does it do that? Have you read the taxes levied in the ACA? it taxes those that can afford health care to pay for those that can't afford health care.

no I did not, The ACA does absolutly nothing to reduce the cost of giving heath care, I dare you to show me one thing in the ACA that does. All the ACA does is levy the cost on those that already have insurance to pay for those that don't have insurance and lowers the payments made to doctors.

What has Obama does in this vein? I'm sure some will say the ACA, but that's not at all what it does. It forces people to buy private health insurance if they can afford it, and subsidizes private health insurance for those who can't. I fail to see how that is making anyone dependant on government. I suppose the other thing conservatives may point out is the HHS proposal to allow waivers for some work requirements to receive welfare. Please keep in mind, all this proposal does is allow state governments to apply for specific waivers, it does not remove the federal work requirement. Please also keep in mind, Romney was in favor of such waivers before he was against them. I see more of that from the conservative side than from Obama. I agree it is wrong. See this is the problem with this administration and his followers, the problem wasn't that americans couldn't get health care, it is that we cannot afford health care. The ACA does not make health care more affordable it makes it more expensive. The people need jobs that pay well enough to afford health care and we need ways to reduce the cost of health care. The ACA does niether, it takes from those that have health care to pay for those that can't afford health care, nothing more nothing less.

If you are trying to point out that Obama is no more to blame for the drought than Bush was to blame for katrina and that the media was completely unfair to Bush by bashing him for katrina and not Obama for the drought then you are correct.

Of course in many of these situations, we see markets fragmenting into megalopolies because of specific government regulations making it hard or impossible for small companies to compete, or regulating particular products out of the market for ideological reasons, etc... Whereas if gov't stayed out of it, more players would be able to partake... I thought government was suppoesd to stop monopolies, but what I see is them creating them with all the costly regulations and taxes.