One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Another try
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Jul 31, 2019 09:54:44   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
How about social security and medicare for seniors and disabled? Food stamps and rental and utility assistance----You are actually helping single moms with children. What's wrong with helping little children? Towns with community colleges should be free to qualified residents.


Thanks for the response Tom. To come out agains these programs in the least targets a person as uncaring. Social Security is a huge Ponzi scheme. Had to end up that way. Not because the govt. has stolen the money and all the rest of the excuses you have heard but it's simple math. With people living much longer and less and less putting in (until recently) it's a matter of time before major changes must be made. Remember; S.S. was never intended to be a persons full retirement, but a supplement. Yes, food stamps, housing assistance, rental assistance, utilities assistance all help single mothers. You know what else it does? It makes people dependent which becomes a learned experience passed down to generations. Medicare, Seniors have paid into. Not really a liberal or conservative program. Why should community colleges for towns be free? Nothings free Tom. Why should I subsidize others in a town I know nothing about. Again subsidizing students gives colleges no incentive to compete for student dollars and lower costs. Look up a college financial spread sheet sometime. You will be shocked at salaries, ridiculous class's offered and perks.

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 10:11:14   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
slatten49 wrote:
Sorry, J. I failed to post the link and then went to bed. I'll try to find the link up again...if I can recall how.

I will, instead, post a comment from Ron Wagner, USAF pilot in P**********l Wing at Andrews, airline pilot, aero engineer and self-professed liberal.

"Our so-called conservative party, the Republicans, has gone insane and are now best called just Republicans because they are not conservative. Here’s just a few of the reasons:

Violating women’s rights: No conservative would ever want to expand government to dig into personal medical lives and have that government make medical choices for women. Honestly, if you’d been in suspended animation for 50 years and came out and someone told you that one political party had gone nuts over destroying privacy to protect fetuses you think: Oh, those damn bleeding heart Democrats are now wanting big government to open medical records and tell pregnant women what to do. I hope the conservative Republicans stand their ground and stop that liberal government overreach.

Violating everyone’s rights: No conservative would want Roe versus Wade overturned because that decision was about privacy and legally had nothing to do with granting women the right to have an a******n. It’s about government’s right to violate the privacy of all of us. First of all, no conservative would ever want a big brother government to assert such control—government can assert such control only if it is able to invade the privacy to discover:

That someone is pregnant.
Exactly what date that pregnancy began.
That they decided to have an a******n.

A conservative government should never even know, nor would it want to know, that those happened.

Violating the right to love: No conservative would ever want big government to deny people who are in love and want to get married the right to get married because they don’t pass some invasive government test. But no! Today’s conservatives want to establish Christian norms and say that if you don’t comply with Christian views on love and marriage, you can’t get married.

Violating the Constitution: No conservative would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever back a coalition of religious people who want to turn the United States into a religious state. That violates the Constitution, which conservatives used to consider the cornerstone of our country. Now? Well, now, they (often) seem to think the Bible should form the basis for our laws—even though the Constitution they profess to love expressly prohibits that.

Violating our future: Finally, they are the worst fiscal party since the end of World War 2. And yet, weirdly, millions of people v**e for them because they think Republicans are fiscally conservative. The opposite is true. Republicans like to say that Democrats are the tax and spend party, which is true, and which is actually very conservative. That’s how the credit bureaus force you to live your fiscal life. But Republicans are the don’t tax but spend even more party. That’s not conservative, that’s just insane and it’s destroying our future.

As a liberal, have I ever thought that conservatives have a point?

And my answer is YES!

Several decades ago, I thought they had great points. But now we don’t really have conservatives in the United States.

Instead, we have the Republican Party and I miss having (true) conservatives."
Sorry, J. I failed to post the link and then went... (show quote)


I disagree with his entire premise about a******n. I do not believe it's just "her" body. I believe the fetus is a human being and as such deserves all the same protections as anyone under the Constitution. I think the author is way over exaggerating the whole religious thing. I do agree Republicans are just as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats. Both want to spend money we don't have, just on different things. We have no real party of conservatives fiscally anymore except the Freedom Caucus and they get demonized by both sides anytime they talk about cutting a budget. Personally this guy just sounds like a Christian basher and full blown Libertarian. I'm conservative and don't give a damn who loves who. I did not want the definition of marriage changed. People could have gotten the same legal protections with Civil Unions.

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 10:14:33   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
JFlorio wrote:
I do agree Republicans are just as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats. Both want to spend money we don't have, just on different things.


Not a whit of difference between them. They enable each other.



Reply
 
 
Jul 31, 2019 10:20:45   #
Rose42
 
slatten49 wrote:
Sorry, J. I failed to post the link and then went to bed. I'll try to find the link up again...if I can recall how.

I will, instead, post a comment from Ron Wagner, USAF pilot in P**********l Wing at Andrews, airline pilot, aero engineer and self-professed liberal.

"Our so-called conservative party, the Republicans, has gone insane and are now best called just Republicans because they are not conservative. Here’s just a few of the reasons:

Violating women’s rights: No conservative would ever want to expand government to dig into personal medical lives and have that government make medical choices for women. Honestly, if you’d been in suspended animation for 50 years and came out and someone told you that one political party had gone nuts over destroying privacy to protect fetuses you think: Oh, those damn bleeding heart Democrats are now wanting big government to open medical records and tell pregnant women what to do. I hope the conservative Republicans stand their ground and stop that liberal government overreach.

Violating everyone’s rights: No conservative would want Roe versus Wade overturned because that decision was about privacy and legally had nothing to do with granting women the right to have an a******n. It’s about government’s right to violate the privacy of all of us. First of all, no conservative would ever want a big brother government to assert such control—government can assert such control only if it is able to invade the privacy to discover:

That someone is pregnant.
Exactly what date that pregnancy began.
That they decided to have an a******n.

A conservative government should never even know, nor would it want to know, that those happened.

Violating the right to love: No conservative would ever want big government to deny people who are in love and want to get married the right to get married because they don’t pass some invasive government test. But no! Today’s conservatives want to establish Christian norms and say that if you don’t comply with Christian views on love and marriage, you can’t get married.

Violating the Constitution: No conservative would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever back a coalition of religious people who want to turn the United States into a religious state. That violates the Constitution, which conservatives used to consider the cornerstone of our country. Now? Well, now, they (often) seem to think the Bible should form the basis for our laws—even though the Constitution they profess to love expressly prohibits that.

Violating our future: Finally, they are the worst fiscal party since the end of World War 2. And yet, weirdly, millions of people v**e for them because they think Republicans are fiscally conservative. The opposite is true. Republicans like to say that Democrats are the tax and spend party, which is true, and which is actually very conservative. That’s how the credit bureaus force you to live your fiscal life. But Republicans are the don’t tax but spend even more party. That’s not conservative, that’s just insane and it’s destroying our future.

As a liberal, have I ever thought that conservatives have a point?

And my answer is YES!

Several decades ago, I thought they had great points. But now we don’t really have conservatives in the United States.

Instead, we have the Republican Party and I miss having (true) conservatives."
Sorry, J. I failed to post the link and then went... (show quote)


A few good points and a few misses. The republican party is indeed a mess - no question.

I miss having more solid liberals and wish they’d abandon the democrat party (and form a new one) which is run by self serving individuals who are in no way liberal.

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 10:23:08   #
F.D.R.
 
If you look at 'Liberal' policies they seem to have the opposite effect than that which is advertised. The question then becomes is this by choice or chance?

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 10:27:45   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Rose42 wrote:
A few good points and a few misses. The republican party is indeed a mess - no question.

I miss having more solid liberals and wish they’d abandon the democrat party (and form a new one) which is run by self serving individuals who are in no way liberal.

Agreed, Rose. But,I wanted to add something to the conversation due to my forgetting to post the link I entended to post last night. The following is that link. A bit dated, but it mentions the liberal policies put forth by Ronald Reagan that proved beneficial...or not , depending on ones views:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2003/reagans-liberal-legacy/

The article is fairly long, but should read to completion.

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 10:47:54   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
F.D.R. wrote:
If you look at 'Liberal' policies they seem to have the opposite effect than that which is advertised. The question then becomes is this by choice or chance?

I pick 'choice'. Little in Washington is left to chance. What do you think?

Reply
 
 
Jul 31, 2019 10:51:12   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
JFlorio wrote:
I disagree with his entire premise about a******n. I do not believe it's just "her" body. I believe the fetus is a human being and as such deserves all the same protections as anyone under the Constitution. I think the author is way over exaggerating the whole religious thing. I do agree Republicans are just as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats. Both want to spend money we don't have, just on different things. We have no real party of conservatives fiscally anymore except the Freedom Caucus and they get demonized by both sides anytime they talk about cutting a budget. Personally this guy just sounds like a Christian basher and full blown Libertarian. I'm conservative and don't give a damn who loves who. I did not want the definition of marriage changed. People could have gotten the same legal protections with Civil Unions.
I disagree with his entire premise about a******n.... (show quote)

I concur with much of what you write here, J, yet we have some disagreement. However, on the issue of civil unions, for instance, we seem to align. As passion runs high on both ends of the ideological spectrum, it is doubtful whether opposing stances on a******n or same sex marriage will ever be agreed upon. I am reminded of a quote attributed to Ben Franklin, "If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins."

As it stands, many hold a different idea of what constitutes 'reason'.

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 11:03:01   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
slatten49 wrote:
I concur with much of what you write here, J, yet we have some disagreement. However, on the issue of civil unions, for instance, we seem to align. As passion runs high on both ends of the ideological spectrum, it is doubtful whether opposing stances on a******n or same sex marriage will ever be agreed upon. I am reminded of a quote attributed to Ben Franklin, "If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins."

As it stands, many hold a different idea of what constitutes 'reason'.
I concur with much of what you write here, J, yet ... (show quote)

Here's a voice of reason. Get government out of the marriage business and leave people alone to live their lives in peace. How's that for reason? No more being at each others' throats over who's allowed in whose bed and who isn't, just a little peace for a change. Remember this? How's that for mixing politics and sexuality?



Reply
Jul 31, 2019 12:45:29   #
Rose42
 
slatten49 wrote:
Agreed, Rose. But,I wanted to add something to the conversation due to my forgetting to post the link I entended to post last night. The following is that link. A bit dated, but it mentions the liberal policies put forth by Ronald Reagan that proved beneficial...or not , depending on ones views:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary-2003/reagans-liberal-legacy/

The article is fairly long, but should read to completion.
Agreed, Rose. But,I wanted to add something to th... (show quote)


That was well worth the read.

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 16:11:35   #
Lt. Rob Polans ret.
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
How about social security and medicare for seniors and disabled? Food stamps and rental and utility assistance----You are actually helping single moms with children. What's wrong with helping little children? Towns with community colleges should be free to qualified residents.


Uh, the medicare, food stamps for seniors, disabled and veterans should be included is already in place. A problem with it is muzzies and i*****l a***ns milk it completely and do NO WORK. Not all, but a good portion of them. So how well the program is working I don't know. I keep getting emails about section 8 housing so that's in place too. The free tuition I have misgivings about. You'll get lots of fraud paperwork from people who are really out of state saying that they are qualified, otherwise, I like that idea for community colleges.

Reply
 
 
Jul 31, 2019 16:58:03   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Here's a voice of reason. Get government out of the marriage business and leave people alone to live their lives in peace. How's that for reason? No more being at each others' throats over who's allowed in whose bed and who isn't, just a little peace for a change. Remember this? How's that for mixing politics and sexuality?

That makes perfectly good sense, Larry.

Reply
Jul 31, 2019 17:21:28   #
Navigator
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
How about social security and medicare for seniors and disabled? Food stamps and rental and utility assistance----You are actually helping single moms with children. What's wrong with helping little children? Towns with community colleges should be free to qualified residents.


Do not agree with the last part. No college should be free. If you feel college is valuable, pay for it otherwise, go to work. There are way too many bums already h*****g out at college wasting their time b/c they do not value what they could get out of college. Half the people in college now would have been better off getting a jump on a working career right out of high school instead of spending daddy's money or running up school loan debt without getting a degree or getting one that is worthless.

Reply
Aug 14, 2019 01:10:44   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
I tried to get the OPP liberals to give me solutions or policies and how to implement them to reach a goal. None responded.
I’m trying again. What liberal policies do you support and what liberal policies have helped a majority of Americans?


Social security--- Now if you want to know how it's done try debate and compromise.--come up with and idea and figure out the best way to implement it. Push the idea back and forth till a compromise is reached that all concerned can live with. Get er done.

Reply
Aug 14, 2019 09:52:03   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Social security--- Now if you want to know how it's done try debate and compromise.--come up with and idea and figure out the best way to implement it. Push the idea back and forth till a compromise is reached that all concerned can live with. Get er done.


Social Security is a giant ponzi scheme Tom. It wasn't meant to be someones entire retirement. Unfortunately it is for a great deal of Americans. It will fail without major changes. It's just math. When SS was first implemented the avg. age people lived to age 62. That age has increased to 82. There are also less people putting in until recently. SS benefits were due to be cut in 2033 but now because of full employment that has been pushed to 2034. There are ideas to shore it up such as increase the income limit. Presently that limit is at $132,900. No SS is taken out of payroll taxes over that amount at this time.
Here's one idea, (mine).
My idea is to give workers a choice. Presently S.S.'s formula is based off your 35 highest earning years. Anyone with 35 years in or within ten years of 35 and planning on working until they reach 35 will be grandfathered in. Others should have the choice of rolling over what they have contributed into an IRA (contributory limits would be raised) or staying with S.S.. With special provisions on when they can get to it. They could then invest as a formula permits with deductions automatic from their check or if self employed a percentage mandated to go into you IRA. The simplest formula I know of is based off 100. If your age is 55 you should have 55% or more of your retirement savings in "safe" can't lose principle products and 45% in more speculative type investments. As you get older the formula changes and investments become more conservative. This type of "laddering" will definitely out perform the S.S. payment received today. Oh well my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.