I should also add that with electronic voting that produces receipt-like paper ballots, the results can be compared. For example, if that 5000 member town turns in 25000 ballots, you can go off the electronic record. Or better yet, you can verify each and every valid ballot and throw out the rest by using a time stamp and/or serial number. Knowing which ballots are fake would also aid in the fraud investigation.
Really? How is it easier to alter the result of a paper election? You have the ballots watched at all times, locked up when the polls close, it's damned hard to stuff. The problem in the States is, of course, that no one seems to have struck the bright idea that other democratic jurisdictions did decades ago that you don't let political parties run elections, ever. You create independent departments that are specifically non-partisan in nature to run your elections, instead of whatever Republican or Democrat jackass somehow lucked into basically overseeing the vote.
You swap the box with one that is filled with the results you want. It's not that hard for the person taking the ballots to be counted to grab the "wrong" box when he/she reaches the counting station.
It's even easier to stuff a few thousand ballots for your candidate into the box on the way there as well. Even if your small town of 5000 turns in 25000 ballots, whose to say which ones are fraudulent and which ones are legit? You either have to count them all or hold the election again. In other words, you count all 25000 ballots and hope that no one notices your incompetence.
I was with you until you said that. Voter fraud is a complete non-issue, and voter-ID initiatives are only meant to disenfranchise the working poor that cannot afford to take a day off to get the ID in the first place. The 'fraud' that is so rampant as to warrant this has never been proven, not on a scale to justify it at all, but if you talk to the mouth breathers on the far-right in this country, the fact that we haven't caught the massive fraud just "proves that the fraud is widespread"...
Bullshit! First, fraud has been proven, is very easy and is rampant. The problem is, what do you do about it? When a precinct that has 10,000 registered voters reports 20,000 ballots, what do you do? You can't throw them out. You can't really start over. All you can do is sweep it under the rug and hope that no one notices that you, as the one in charge, didn't catch it before now. Besides, it's rarely widespread enough to change the outcome... or is it?
Next, I don't care if it's a single fucking fraudulent vote. That vote may the one that negates MY vote. You feign outrage that this might disenfranchise voters, but you don't really care that fraud disenfranchises voters. One fraudulent vote has the same effect as a Klan Wizard blocking a voter at the polls. Would you allow that a man in a sheet to prevent a poor black woman from voting? Of course not, yet the effect of fraud is the same.
I just can't fucking believe that someone has the balls to say that no one should verify that the person voting is truly who they say they are. No wonder you posted as AC.
Paper voting is superior in every way to electronic voting, except possibly price...
Speed! When the polls close, you know your vote tally. There is no time needed for counting the ballots. You know who won the election the night of the election.
The solution is a paper receipt that shows how you voted. This gives the voter a chance to verify their vote and void it and start over if there is an issue. This also becomes a paper ballot that gets dropped into a box on the way out of the polling station. If there is an question or errors with the machines, the paper ballots make for a good back up and verification of the electronic count. The paper ballots could also contain a time stamp and code that verifies that it is truly a cast ballot and not the result of "stuffing".
Any plan has issues, but I feel it's better than any other plan I've seen and gives the best benefits of electronic and paper voting.
Saying that your "state funded college" cost you $500 per semester is pretty much cheating unless you account for the costs that the state paid.
FWIW, I agree with the general principle. Even just ten years ago, my tuition was like $4k or $5k a semester. Now my fiance will be paying $12k a semester. WTF?
I fully understand that it is a state institution and is state funded to some extent. Even back then I would not have been able to works summers and pay a private institution's tuition. My point was that even the state funded institutions have gotten exponentially more expensive and I don't think the state is spending any less.
A big reason your school was so much cheaper is that it was likely subsidized more. If you were eligible (as many folks were), pell grant would pay 80% of your tuition in 1975, scaling back to 40% by the year 2000.
I took no grants or loans. Although, after a few years, I did join the Army and used the GI Bill to pay for the rest of my education so I didn't have to work so hard.
Yeah, it's kinda nice to be able to put my opinions forward without being called a racist or creationist. It's frustrating when I know that if people would listen, they would actually find that my views are more reasonable than they the category I'm placed in. And, I must admit, I am guilty of it from time to time. The beginning of your first comment struck me as projection. One group accuses another of name calling, for example, and then calls the other side names. I get plenty of that from TV and Network news to get it here. Of course, since I don't get Fox News, I receive no conservative (balanced) perspective of world events so all I see is the hypocrisy from the left.
First let me state that you are in Oklahoma. That explains a lot. Nothing against OK, but like places like Mississippi, Kentucky or any other "Redneck" driven state, I can see why you would get turned off.
I've lived in both Michigan and Texas. Conservatives in these places seem to be a bit more... liberal. I say liberal as in libertarian, not socialist.
There are some things I disagree with my fellow conservatives on. For example, pot should be legal and regulated much like alcohol is. However, I am a Christian. With that, I feel that things that Christians are against should be legal. God gave us the right to sin. Who is the government to take that rights away? Sin should not be outlawed just because it's a sin. I feel that abortion is not a choice however. It affects another human life and the government to protect us from each other is an important one. I'm against gay marriage, but I feel that same sex couples should have the same rights as the rest of us. Marriage is religious function that the government should stay out of. I would like to see all marriages converted to civil unions and allow same sex couples civil union rights. That way, we are all truly equal.
As for fiscal policy, the federal government should follow the 10th Amendment. There are few federal programs that could not be better handled by the states.
As for "sound bites" and "faux outrage", I see the "war on women", "war on women's rights", "war on gays", "war on minorities", "war on contraception" and so on as examples counter to the ones you mention. I see where you are coming from, but don't pretend that the right are the only ones using them. Every issue from the right seems to have a negative label attached to it from the left. This very topic of student loans is a fine example. There was a Republican bill that was promised a veto and blocked by D's in the Senate because it used Obamacare funds to pay for it. This was called a war on women, even though the fund was not specifically for women. Now that R's are blocking a D bill for the same purpose that raises taxes to pay for it, R's are accused of being either protecting the rich or waging a "war on students". Seriously, we are not a war with everyone.
Now the Republican party seems to be about faux outrage and easy to digest soundbytes, offering overly simplistic (and mostly unrealistic solutions) to vastly complex issues.
What you are referring to is the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) from back in the FDR era. If there are truly no jobs to be had, even a hard core conservative like myself will agree to some sort of government assistance. The reason the CCC was not a bad idea is because you had to work for it and most of the money you made had to be sent home to support your parents.
Unfortunately, that would never work today. First, conservatives would balk because the CCC could only do jobs that don't compete with private enterprise. For example, for every CCC crew you have building bridges and repairing roads, you put a non-government crew out of work. It would make more sense to hire that crew to do whatever job the CCC would be doing. Next, the liberals would back because they would demand high pay, benefits and working conditions that would keep these CCC guys from every quitting to join the private sector. They would also use excuses as to why these people shouldn't have to work to eat like working on a CCC crew takes time from looking for private sector jobs. Also, the program at the time only took single men, ages 17 to 23.
Back in FDR times, the CCC did jobs like building parks and picking up trash. These are jobs that the government would have never done if it didn't have a labor force that it had to find work for.
No, I expect "factions" in my party to steer her in the correct direction. In this case, it's the TEA Party. This is the wing of the Republican Party that is vilified as "racist, radical, women-hating" because they want less government spending and more local control over local lives. The spend happy Republicans you refer to are becoming extinct due to the TEA Party.
In the next election, I can vote Libertarian or Republican. If I vote Libertarian, I'm making a statement, but I'm not helping anyone get elected. When the counts are all said and done and a winner declared, my vote counts for the exact same as it would have counted if I stayed home and downloaded porn. I could have negated a vote for the guy I don't like or maybe even added a +1 to the guy I do like for a Democrat that voted Green Party.
Sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Last time R's held both houses of Congress and the White House, the average deficit was around $250 billion. Way too much. However, when you look at the years where D's held Congress and the White House, the average deficit was around $1500 billion. Friggin' Ridiculous! So, if me and say, just 20% of the people who feel like I do vote their conscience and vote for a third part, say Libertarian, Obama and the D's get reelected and the deficit stays in the $1500 billion range. Or, if we stick together, hold our noses and vote Republican, the deficit will return to the $250 billion levels.
I'll take the $250 billion deficit and continue working within the party to reduce that number over the $1500 billion with no chance of having any effect whatsoever. So tell me, who is the fool?
If you split the Republican party between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives, the Democrats will win every election, every time. If you split the Democratic party between the Free-Loves and the socialists, Republicans will win every time. Until we implement a requirement that candidates receive a majority of the vote, this will continue to be the case.
And preventing education is an investment in the future of the republican party. A combination of poverty and ignorance is the best environment for their ideology to grow and spread in.
It's sad when bullshit talking points get modded up.
I think you are confused. The Republican party is about self reliance. We want people to take care of themselves. You can't have personal freedom without personal responsibility! Republicans know that government handouts is not a way out of poverty. All it does is multiply the problem. The best social program is a job!
Because the Republican bill was a sham. It proposed to pay for it by cutting support for health care for poor women. It was specifically designed for Democrats to kill.
The Democratic plan is for wealthy people who will eventually. benefit from being able to hire a college educated work force to pay for it.
Really? Women are the only ones who would benefit from this fund? Do poor men not deserve health care? What about the children of the poor? Why are Democrats only concerned about women? Also, doesn't that violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
First, no the fund was not about women, but don't let that stop you from trying to make it seem like Republicans hate women. Next, the fund that the money comes from is not enacted yet, so it won't take money away from anyone. Finally, and here is most important part, it is a fact that government spends WAY too much money and taxing the rich, no matter how much, will not make up the shortfall. Spending MUST be cut. Sorry, but that's a fact as numbers don't lie. Although, this isn't even a cut. It's taking an increase expenditure that is part of Obamacare and redirecting it to pay for keeping student rates low.
So take your "Republicans hate women" spin and place it where women won't search for it.
I have to pay to subsidize benefits for younger people that I didn't get. AND I have to pay to subsidize social security and medicare, neither of which I will ever see, because they are both projected to go broke before I ever collect a cent, and fixing them is a political third rail.
I hope those younger people will be educated enough to pay for your social security and medical support you'll need when you grow old enough.
Education doesn't pay bills. Work does. The question is; will these people have jobs that make enough to pay taxes?
Alternatively, you could charge young people vast sums of money for their education
Why are the sums of money "vast"? College tuition and fee rates have gone up much faster than the rate of inflation. Why do you think that is? Other things have increased at this rate as well. Health care, for example has also increased at this rate. What do these things have in common? Well, one this is that someone else is paying for them. See, with health care, insurance companies and government will pay a set minimum for procedures. When there is a minimum that payers will pay, what do you think the minimum price will be? The laws of supply and demand no longer applies.
The same can be said of higher education. When students can apply for grants and easy-to-get loans, they can afford more than they can truly afford. When a provider may charge more for a service and still maintain an adequate customer base, they will. Universities may charge more because students can artificially afford to pay more. Before easy loans and grants, students were able to work a summer waiting tables or manning a booth at a mall, save that money and use it to pay for the next year of school. This is no longer the case. Now students must either get student loans or have very wealthy parents.
When I went to school in the early 90's, my tuition at a state funded college was about $500 a semester. Books cost me another $200 or so. Other little piss-ant fees like parking and such would run me another $100. Of course, I didn't stay in a dorm or get a meal plan as it was cheaper to live at Mom's. I was able to work summers and part time during the school year and paid for the whole thing in cash.
Thus why you should vote Constitutional Party -> Libertarian -> Independent -> Republican -> Abstain in that order for every politician.
I completely agree, but unfortunately, a vote for anything other than the major party you are closest to is a vote for the one you are not. The only way for a third party to stand a chance beyond the little onesies and twosies here and there is to change the system. The easiest and least disruptive way to do this is to only declare a winner at the state level in any federal election if one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. If no one receives 50%, the top two vote earners go into a runoff. This would allow voters to vote for a third party without fear that a vote for and independent would ensure that your last choice wins.
That is an unfair argument (and shows GOP bias on your part). The current bill was only being voted on to start the debate, and the Republicans opposed it because "the Democratic plan to pay for the bill by forcing high-earning stockholders in some privately owned corporations and professional practices to pay additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes."
So the GOP blocked the bill because high-earners will get increased taxes, whereas the Dems blocked the first bill you cited because the GOP wanted to pay for it by cutting Health Care to middle-income families. Frankly, the GOP choice is no choice at all.
THIS comment explains it better that I can. The key, takeaway point for me is this:
The Senate bill would raise taxes permanently, and it will take ten years of that tax increase to cover one year of the student loan interest freeze.
I know we all want to soak the rich to pay for programs for the poor and everything else the government spends money on, but the fact remains that even if we take 100% of all the money from those filthy rich, greedy pigs, it won't make a dent in our spending. The bottom line is that the government MUST spend less. Let's the states decide how and if they want to make up for the shortfall.
What's even more funny is that Republicans are running ads against Obama for how much total student loan debt there is out there. There actions here would either (a) increase debts, assuming the higher interest rates don't keep people from going to college, or (b) keep people from going to college.
Yep. they are showing themselves to be *sooo* much better.
Do you not know that Democrats blocked a Republican bill to lower student loan interest rates just last month? The fact that you hammer Republicans for this either shows blatant bias or extreme ignorance on your part as well as whoever submitted this article.
How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists? How do you arrive at the notion that scientists are complicit? How do you decide people agreeing with them are shills?
I didn't say that scientists were being bribed, I said that government is paying for the studies.
I never said that scientists were complicit. The scientists that come to the conclusions that the government wants to hear get more grants. Those that don't are labeled "deniers" and no longer given grants. After a few cycles of this, all the scientists (who still have jobs) truly agree with the conditions that require more government regulation.
I never said that people agreeing with them are shills. The original post said that the Heritage Foundation were shills for big oil, because big oil at one point made a contribution. So, if Heritage Foundation are shills big oil because big oil is paying the bills, shouldn't it also be true that those who take grants to support AGW are also shills for big government? The logic is sound. If X is a shill to Y because Y pays the bills, then A is a shill to B because B pays the bills.
How do you keep getting modded up? I really don't get it.
If it makes you feel any better, I've now been modded down. I've been modded down because because people who disagree with what I've said naturally thing that what I've said is wrong. Since there is no "Disagree" moderation, they silence me by modding me "Flamebait". This, by the way, is against the moderator guidelines. There is no "Wrong" mod for a reason. Evidently you agree with the mods opinion in this case.
No. Liberals think that government should take care of the poor. Jesus said his followers should take care of the poor. Liberals don't like it when Churches care for the sick and the hungry. They think that's government's job.
Until then, STFU about what conservatives want...
Am I qualified to say what it is YOU want? No? The that probably means that you have no idea what conservatives want. The problem with most of the examples you've provided is that they are decided on a federal level. Since federal law trumps state law, we have to fight them there. I have not met a conservative yet that wouldn't take every issue you've brought up and let the states decide. Liberals believe in a strong federal government that dictates what the states are allowed to do.
Oh, and TSA and The PATRIOT Act were not abused under Bush. Under you liberal Obama, however, well, it's practically a police state! So don't tell me what conservatives want, rail on them for what you THINK they want, and then give a pass to your LIBERAL president who has abused the very powers you accuse conservatives of abusing.
Are you seriously trying to tell this guy what he truly believes? Do you seriously think you know better than him?
A guy says that all conservatives are Christians, and most of those are fundamentalists, the post you reply to say it's not true and you tell him he doesn't know what HE believes? I am a conservative, and I am a Christian, but even my church is not full of "fundamentalists"!
I know you WANT to believe that conservatives are what you claim they are. Then, your hatred is fully justified. Unfortunately, you don't realize that if you have to vilify your opponents to yourself to justify your disdain, maybe you should question your feelings toward them.
Not really. Sorry if science has a liberal bias, but the first post sounds pretty accurate. Yours sounds like the ranting of someone who doesn't let facts cloud beliefs. This whole 'fair and balanced' thing need not apply when one side is crazy.
There are literally thousands of scientists who say that either global warming is bullshit, our methods are bullshit, our models are bullshit, or that the suspected causes for the warming is bullshit.
I don't know if I'd call them crazy, but if you want to silence those that you disagree with, calling them names is one way to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
And why is it important to have astronauts in space? Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.
Because an astronaut on Mars with a shovel can do more in 10 minutes than two robotic rovers can do in a year.
I should also add that with electronic voting that produces receipt-like paper ballots, the results can be compared. For example, if that 5000 member town turns in 25000 ballots, you can go off the electronic record. Or better yet, you can verify each and every valid ballot and throw out the rest by using a time stamp and/or serial number. Knowing which ballots are fake would also aid in the fraud investigation.
Really? How is it easier to alter the result of a paper election? You have the ballots watched at all times, locked up when the polls close, it's damned hard to stuff. The problem in the States is, of course, that no one seems to have struck the bright idea that other democratic jurisdictions did decades ago that you don't let political parties run elections, ever. You create independent departments that are specifically non-partisan in nature to run your elections, instead of whatever Republican or Democrat jackass somehow lucked into basically overseeing the vote.
You swap the box with one that is filled with the results you want. It's not that hard for the person taking the ballots to be counted to grab the "wrong" box when he/she reaches the counting station.
It's even easier to stuff a few thousand ballots for your candidate into the box on the way there as well. Even if your small town of 5000 turns in 25000 ballots, whose to say which ones are fraudulent and which ones are legit? You either have to count them all or hold the election again. In other words, you count all 25000 ballots and hope that no one notices your incompetence.
I was with you until you said that. Voter fraud is a complete non-issue, and voter-ID initiatives are only meant to disenfranchise the working poor that cannot afford to take a day off to get the ID in the first place. The 'fraud' that is so rampant as to warrant this has never been proven, not on a scale to justify it at all, but if you talk to the mouth breathers on the far-right in this country, the fact that we haven't caught the massive fraud just "proves that the fraud is widespread"...
Bullshit! First, fraud has been proven, is very easy and is rampant. The problem is, what do you do about it? When a precinct that has 10,000 registered voters reports 20,000 ballots, what do you do? You can't throw them out. You can't really start over. All you can do is sweep it under the rug and hope that no one notices that you, as the one in charge, didn't catch it before now. Besides, it's rarely widespread enough to change the outcome... or is it?
Next, I don't care if it's a single fucking fraudulent vote. That vote may the one that negates MY vote. You feign outrage that this might disenfranchise voters, but you don't really care that fraud disenfranchises voters. One fraudulent vote has the same effect as a Klan Wizard blocking a voter at the polls. Would you allow that a man in a sheet to prevent a poor black woman from voting? Of course not, yet the effect of fraud is the same.
I just can't fucking believe that someone has the balls to say that no one should verify that the person voting is truly who they say they are. No wonder you posted as AC.
Paper voting is superior in every way to electronic voting, except possibly price...
Speed! When the polls close, you know your vote tally. There is no time needed for counting the ballots. You know who won the election the night of the election.
The solution is a paper receipt that shows how you voted. This gives the voter a chance to verify their vote and void it and start over if there is an issue. This also becomes a paper ballot that gets dropped into a box on the way out of the polling station. If there is an question or errors with the machines, the paper ballots make for a good back up and verification of the electronic count. The paper ballots could also contain a time stamp and code that verifies that it is truly a cast ballot and not the result of "stuffing".
Any plan has issues, but I feel it's better than any other plan I've seen and gives the best benefits of electronic and paper voting.
Saying that your "state funded college" cost you $500 per semester is pretty much cheating unless you account for the costs that the state paid.
FWIW, I agree with the general principle. Even just ten years ago, my tuition was like $4k or $5k a semester. Now my fiance will be paying $12k a semester. WTF?
I fully understand that it is a state institution and is state funded to some extent. Even back then I would not have been able to works summers and pay a private institution's tuition. My point was that even the state funded institutions have gotten exponentially more expensive and I don't think the state is spending any less.
A big reason your school was so much cheaper is that it was likely subsidized more. If you were eligible (as many folks were), pell grant would pay 80% of your tuition in 1975, scaling back to 40% by the year 2000.
I took no grants or loans. Although, after a few years, I did join the Army and used the GI Bill to pay for the rest of my education so I didn't have to work so hard.
Yeah, it's kinda nice to be able to put my opinions forward without being called a racist or creationist. It's frustrating when I know that if people would listen, they would actually find that my views are more reasonable than they the category I'm placed in. And, I must admit, I am guilty of it from time to time. The beginning of your first comment struck me as projection. One group accuses another of name calling, for example, and then calls the other side names. I get plenty of that from TV and Network news to get it here. Of course, since I don't get Fox News, I receive no conservative (balanced) perspective of world events so all I see is the hypocrisy from the left.
Nice chat. Thanx
Fine! I read it.
First let me state that you are in Oklahoma. That explains a lot. Nothing against OK, but like places like Mississippi, Kentucky or any other "Redneck" driven state, I can see why you would get turned off.
I've lived in both Michigan and Texas. Conservatives in these places seem to be a bit more... liberal. I say liberal as in libertarian, not socialist.
There are some things I disagree with my fellow conservatives on. For example, pot should be legal and regulated much like alcohol is. However, I am a Christian. With that, I feel that things that Christians are against should be legal. God gave us the right to sin. Who is the government to take that rights away? Sin should not be outlawed just because it's a sin. I feel that abortion is not a choice however. It affects another human life and the government to protect us from each other is an important one. I'm against gay marriage, but I feel that same sex couples should have the same rights as the rest of us. Marriage is religious function that the government should stay out of. I would like to see all marriages converted to civil unions and allow same sex couples civil union rights. That way, we are all truly equal.
As for fiscal policy, the federal government should follow the 10th Amendment. There are few federal programs that could not be better handled by the states.
As for "sound bites" and "faux outrage", I see the "war on women", "war on women's rights", "war on gays", "war on minorities", "war on contraception" and so on as examples counter to the ones you mention. I see where you are coming from, but don't pretend that the right are the only ones using them. Every issue from the right seems to have a negative label attached to it from the left. This very topic of student loans is a fine example. There was a Republican bill that was promised a veto and blocked by D's in the Senate because it used Obamacare funds to pay for it. This was called a war on women, even though the fund was not specifically for women. Now that R's are blocking a D bill for the same purpose that raises taxes to pay for it, R's are accused of being either protecting the rich or waging a "war on students". Seriously, we are not a war with everyone.
Now the Republican party seems to be about faux outrage and easy to digest soundbytes, offering overly simplistic (and mostly unrealistic solutions) to vastly complex issues.
You mean like "Yes We Can!"
I stopped reading after that sentence.
What you are referring to is the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) from back in the FDR era. If there are truly no jobs to be had, even a hard core conservative like myself will agree to some sort of government assistance. The reason the CCC was not a bad idea is because you had to work for it and most of the money you made had to be sent home to support your parents.
Unfortunately, that would never work today. First, conservatives would balk because the CCC could only do jobs that don't compete with private enterprise. For example, for every CCC crew you have building bridges and repairing roads, you put a non-government crew out of work. It would make more sense to hire that crew to do whatever job the CCC would be doing. Next, the liberals would back because they would demand high pay, benefits and working conditions that would keep these CCC guys from every quitting to join the private sector. They would also use excuses as to why these people shouldn't have to work to eat like working on a CCC crew takes time from looking for private sector jobs. Also, the program at the time only took single men, ages 17 to 23.
Back in FDR times, the CCC did jobs like building parks and picking up trash. These are jobs that the government would have never done if it didn't have a labor force that it had to find work for.
No, I expect "factions" in my party to steer her in the correct direction. In this case, it's the TEA Party. This is the wing of the Republican Party that is vilified as "racist, radical, women-hating" because they want less government spending and more local control over local lives. The spend happy Republicans you refer to are becoming extinct due to the TEA Party.
In the next election, I can vote Libertarian or Republican. If I vote Libertarian, I'm making a statement, but I'm not helping anyone get elected. When the counts are all said and done and a winner declared, my vote counts for the exact same as it would have counted if I stayed home and downloaded porn. I could have negated a vote for the guy I don't like or maybe even added a +1 to the guy I do like for a Democrat that voted Green Party.
Sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Last time R's held both houses of Congress and the White House, the average deficit was around $250 billion. Way too much. However, when you look at the years where D's held Congress and the White House, the average deficit was around $1500 billion. Friggin' Ridiculous! So, if me and say, just 20% of the people who feel like I do vote their conscience and vote for a third part, say Libertarian, Obama and the D's get reelected and the deficit stays in the $1500 billion range. Or, if we stick together, hold our noses and vote Republican, the deficit will return to the $250 billion levels.
I'll take the $250 billion deficit and continue working within the party to reduce that number over the $1500 billion with no chance of having any effect whatsoever. So tell me, who is the fool?
If you split the Republican party between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives, the Democrats will win every election, every time. If you split the Democratic party between the Free-Loves and the socialists, Republicans will win every time. Until we implement a requirement that candidates receive a majority of the vote, this will continue to be the case.
And preventing education is an investment in the future of the republican party. A combination of poverty and ignorance is the best environment for their ideology to grow and spread in.
It's sad when bullshit talking points get modded up.
I think you are confused. The Republican party is about self reliance. We want people to take care of themselves. You can't have personal freedom without personal responsibility! Republicans know that government handouts is not a way out of poverty. All it does is multiply the problem. The best social program is a job!
Because the Republican bill was a sham. It proposed to pay for it by cutting support for health care for poor women.
It was specifically designed for Democrats to kill.
The Democratic plan is for wealthy people who will eventually. benefit from being able to hire a college educated work force to pay for it.
Really? Women are the only ones who would benefit from this fund? Do poor men not deserve health care? What about the children of the poor? Why are Democrats only concerned about women? Also, doesn't that violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
First, no the fund was not about women, but don't let that stop you from trying to make it seem like Republicans hate women. Next, the fund that the money comes from is not enacted yet, so it won't take money away from anyone. Finally, and here is most important part, it is a fact that government spends WAY too much money and taxing the rich, no matter how much, will not make up the shortfall. Spending MUST be cut. Sorry, but that's a fact as numbers don't lie. Although, this isn't even a cut. It's taking an increase expenditure that is part of Obamacare and redirecting it to pay for keeping student rates low.
So take your "Republicans hate women" spin and place it where women won't search for it.
I have to pay to subsidize benefits for younger people that I didn't get.
AND
I have to pay to subsidize social security and medicare, neither of which I will ever see, because they are both projected to go broke before I ever collect a cent, and fixing them is a political third rail.
I hope those younger people will be educated enough to pay for your social security and medical support you'll need when you grow old enough.
Education doesn't pay bills. Work does. The question is; will these people have jobs that make enough to pay taxes?
Alternatively, you could charge young people vast sums of money for their education
Why are the sums of money "vast"? College tuition and fee rates have gone up much faster than the rate of inflation. Why do you think that is? Other things have increased at this rate as well. Health care, for example has also increased at this rate. What do these things have in common? Well, one this is that someone else is paying for them. See, with health care, insurance companies and government will pay a set minimum for procedures. When there is a minimum that payers will pay, what do you think the minimum price will be? The laws of supply and demand no longer applies.
The same can be said of higher education. When students can apply for grants and easy-to-get loans, they can afford more than they can truly afford. When a provider may charge more for a service and still maintain an adequate customer base, they will. Universities may charge more because students can artificially afford to pay more. Before easy loans and grants, students were able to work a summer waiting tables or manning a booth at a mall, save that money and use it to pay for the next year of school. This is no longer the case. Now students must either get student loans or have very wealthy parents.
When I went to school in the early 90's, my tuition at a state funded college was about $500 a semester. Books cost me another $200 or so. Other little piss-ant fees like parking and such would run me another $100. Of course, I didn't stay in a dorm or get a meal plan as it was cheaper to live at Mom's. I was able to work summers and part time during the school year and paid for the whole thing in cash.
Thus why you should vote Constitutional Party -> Libertarian -> Independent -> Republican -> Abstain in that order for every politician.
I completely agree, but unfortunately, a vote for anything other than the major party you are closest to is a vote for the one you are not. The only way for a third party to stand a chance beyond the little onesies and twosies here and there is to change the system. The easiest and least disruptive way to do this is to only declare a winner at the state level in any federal election if one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. If no one receives 50%, the top two vote earners go into a runoff. This would allow voters to vote for a third party without fear that a vote for and independent would ensure that your last choice wins.
That is an unfair argument (and shows GOP bias on your part). The current bill was only being voted on to start the debate, and the Republicans opposed it because "the Democratic plan to pay for the bill by forcing high-earning stockholders in some privately owned corporations and professional practices to pay additional Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes."
So the GOP blocked the bill because high-earners will get increased taxes, whereas the Dems blocked the first bill you cited because the GOP wanted to pay for it by cutting Health Care to middle-income families. Frankly, the GOP choice is no choice at all.
THIS comment explains it better that I can. The key, takeaway point for me is this:
The Senate bill would raise taxes permanently, and it will take ten years of that tax increase to cover one year of the student loan interest freeze.
I know we all want to soak the rich to pay for programs for the poor and everything else the government spends money on, but the fact remains that even if we take 100% of all the money from those filthy rich, greedy pigs, it won't make a dent in our spending. The bottom line is that the government MUST spend less. Let's the states decide how and if they want to make up for the shortfall.
What's even more funny is that Republicans are running ads against Obama for how much total student loan debt there is out there. There actions here would either (a) increase debts, assuming the higher interest rates don't keep people from going to college, or (b) keep people from going to college.
Yep. they are showing themselves to be *sooo* much better.
Do you not know that Democrats blocked a Republican bill to lower student loan interest rates just last month? The fact that you hammer Republicans for this either shows blatant bias or extreme ignorance on your part as well as whoever submitted this article.
HERE is an article explaining it.
Before it doesn't emit infrared radiation?
Good point, but I would assume that it's got to be giving off quite a bit to be detectable from here.
Or maybe it's just very reflective.
If Christ were a liberal, why are more liberals not Christians?
How do you come to the conclusion that the government is bribing scientists?
How do you arrive at the notion that scientists are complicit?
How do you decide people agreeing with them are shills?
I didn't say that scientists were being bribed, I said that government is paying for the studies.
I never said that scientists were complicit. The scientists that come to the conclusions that the government wants to hear get more grants. Those that don't are labeled "deniers" and no longer given grants. After a few cycles of this, all the scientists (who still have jobs) truly agree with the conditions that require more government regulation.
I never said that people agreeing with them are shills. The original post said that the Heritage Foundation were shills for big oil, because big oil at one point made a contribution. So, if Heritage Foundation are shills big oil because big oil is paying the bills, shouldn't it also be true that those who take grants to support AGW are also shills for big government? The logic is sound. If X is a shill to Y because Y pays the bills, then A is a shill to B because B pays the bills.
How do you keep getting modded up? I really don't get it.
If it makes you feel any better, I've now been modded down. I've been modded down because because people who disagree with what I've said naturally thing that what I've said is wrong. Since there is no "Disagree" moderation, they silence me by modding me "Flamebait". This, by the way, is against the moderator guidelines. There is no "Wrong" mod for a reason. Evidently you agree with the mods opinion in this case.
Jesus was a liberal
No. Liberals think that government should take care of the poor. Jesus said his followers should take care of the poor. Liberals don't like it when Churches care for the sick and the hungry. They think that's government's job.
Until then, STFU about what conservatives want...
Am I qualified to say what it is YOU want? No? The that probably means that you have no idea what conservatives want. The problem with most of the examples you've provided is that they are decided on a federal level. Since federal law trumps state law, we have to fight them there. I have not met a conservative yet that wouldn't take every issue you've brought up and let the states decide. Liberals believe in a strong federal government that dictates what the states are allowed to do.
Oh, and TSA and The PATRIOT Act were not abused under Bush. Under you liberal Obama, however, well, it's practically a police state! So don't tell me what conservatives want, rail on them for what you THINK they want, and then give a pass to your LIBERAL president who has abused the very powers you accuse conservatives of abusing.
Are you seriously trying to tell this guy what he truly believes? Do you seriously think you know better than him?
A guy says that all conservatives are Christians, and most of those are fundamentalists, the post you reply to say it's not true and you tell him he doesn't know what HE believes? I am a conservative, and I am a Christian, but even my church is not full of "fundamentalists"!
I know you WANT to believe that conservatives are what you claim they are. Then, your hatred is fully justified. Unfortunately, you don't realize that if you have to vilify your opponents to yourself to justify your disdain, maybe you should question your feelings toward them.
Not really. Sorry if science has a liberal bias, but the first post sounds pretty accurate. Yours sounds like the ranting of someone who doesn't let facts cloud beliefs. This whole 'fair and balanced' thing need not apply when one side is crazy.
There are literally thousands of scientists who say that either global warming is bullshit, our methods are bullshit, our models are bullshit, or that the suspected causes for the warming is bullshit.
I don't know if I'd call them crazy, but if you want to silence those that you disagree with, calling them names is one way to do it.