Kerry a liar? - Page 3

!!!


.....can you say that on the internet?

So now the news says that Kerry wasn't lying.

WHOOPS!

I heard Alan Keyes the other day, he said Republicans were just liberals who didn't want to pay their taxes.


The AMA, among other interested parties has kept the number of doctors artifically low. This raises the cost of health care. Since everyone in this country lives paycheck to paycheck, we ask for $5 co-pay insurance where anyone with a lowgrade fever can go to the emrgency room. This radically stimulates demand for a fixed resource. Guess what? You just took "economies of scale" and used that power to fu<king pay off the medical industry!

Now you have a bunch of users looking for their next $5 trip to the pill fairy! I am REALLY generalizing here, across multiple user groups, but you have thrown gasoline on a fire.

Also, take an aging (read: dying) culture whose retirees HAVE to have their trips to the pill fairy because losing that extra 150 pounds wasn't as much fun as getting diabetes, and you have another stress on an aritifically small resource. Combine these three factors alone and you have trouble. Throw in nationalized healthcare and you have disaster.

Yea, much more benign than having a "premature specification"
BTW, I could go for one of those right now.

For someone who claims to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat, NaplesX, it's really odd, I must say, how you've started two threads attacking Democrats and you defend George Bush at all costs, even when the facts are obviously against you. No?

Well, you can not be a republican or democrat and still have conservative, right-wing leanings.

either that or naples just likes to argue \

Oh, I see. He's a fascist and Bush is the least-worst option? Kinda like that?

with the money that both parties have thrown to poverty, shouldn't all the "poor" be millionairs by now? and poverty in america is equal to the upper crust in nations that actualy have povertv, we are the richest countryon earth, there is no REAL poverty here.

let us hope mike powell doesnt read these forums!!!!

You asshole.

He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.


As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.

There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.

So you are on a Democratic guilt trip, thinking that throwing money at the poor in excessive ammounts will help to pull them up to a level playing field? In this country we have bootstraps to pull us up, not a giant government elevator that most of these people seem to be riding up and down at their leisure.

Shawn,

Please produce for me the actual or even estimated number of people that live in what all of us would consider to be true poverty and do so without it being related to lifestyle choices. In otherwords the true people life has shat upon.

Most people are in "poverty" because the government defines them as such due to income. However the "impoverished" still own homes, cars, have televisions, videogame systems, and have a growing obesity problem due to a complete lack of hunger.

Most don't consider that a "poverty" problem even though the government would define them as such. Being against towards income redistribution for folks such as this is not callous. Most of the children in my school receive free or reduced lunch. In fact pretty much 60-70 of all kids in all school do. It is because the guidelines are so broad that everyone is "poor" by their definition. I pointed you toward the Penn State qualification program to show you that even though you drive a fairly new car, own a computer (and likely a wealth of consumer electronics as well,) attend a private university, and live in a large, expensive home, you would qualify for food stamps based off your income.

You would get the services, but you are not truly impoverished, nor will you remain there for life. (at least I hope not)

Walter Williams

Give this a read along with this....

Thomas Sowell

You are passing through "poverty" as defined by your income for a short period while attending school. Most young people do this and when you are someday in the top 10% of incomes, it won't be because you oppressed someone. It will be because you gained a degree and earned with it.

Nick

"America will survive until politicians discover they can bribe people with their own money." -- de Tocqueville

Look at where Gore got his votes in 2000. Places with a LOT of government giveaway... people who need the tax advocates to keep redistributing wealth from American "fly-over country" to the never-solved problems of large cities.

People are self-interested beings... and once a program gets rolling, people will take and take until the whole thing collapses. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.

Unfortunately, for every dollar the government spends, someone has to be taxed for that dollar. It is not "free whatever" - someone (you and I) have to pay for it. Look at all the caterwauling over welfare reform under Clinton. Certain people are addicted to government giveaway... and we are all paying for their addiction. (An addiction that is destroying them AND us)

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
-Robert Heinlein_

We have heard this yarn before...


Why don't you all read the facts and then come back here: Welfare Databook

hahahaha "Yarn" he calls it. So sad.

How about you tell me what in my post is not correct, in your view? I mean, tossing a PDF at me does not really answer any of the points I made.

Poverty is defined on a national scale as earning below the national cost of living. So while comparing this to the impoverished in say Guatemala gives you a sense that us americans have it all right, it is not a legitimate comparison when thinking about the overall implications of poverty in this country. I also find the citations of welfare abusers are a bit one sided, because I can certainly cite abuse of Social Security by well off people, and abuse of tax laws by large corporations which have far more profound effects than one person being able to buy a new toyota...

I love fighting with people who think they have a RIGHT to take money I have EARNED, so that someone else can shirk the same responsibilites that I carry each day. Simply amazing. I worked for that money- and they can too... but instead I have the IRS with a gun to my head telling me "you must practice charity!"

Why don't you read the pdf... I wasn't actually responding to the obvious and erroneously thought out remarks you make in your post.

Does that mean I can get your vote to abolish Social Security? Woo HOO!

Yeah, I work for my money too. and i believe the government is in a better position than i to do good works with the money i pay in taxes.....

Nope... It has problems as all federal systems do...

Jesus Christ man!

Does this or anything you have ever written constitute a retort? Is there thought behind the ? Is there thought behind using Jesus Christ as your explicative?

Are you a student at Penn State?

Thoth

Why do you ask?

As for the thought behind the comment...The Government has no business in redistributing our wealth, it is just wrong. Get that through your head, equalized opportunity is different than everyone being equal.

What equalize oppourtunity?

Explain how that works... think about it for a second or three...

And there we have it, ladies and gents. Everyone isn't equal...

Exactly. Now we are getting somewhere.

Everyone should have the equal ability to succede, not everyone will or even should.

I ask because I wonder if you have Federally subsidized student loans.

I like you...

Does a child from an impoverished family have the same opportunity as a child from a wealthy family? Once you realize that we don't have equality of opportunity in this country, you'll come around.

That's rich coming you after some of the things I've heard coming in my direction.

Well the first part should have made enough sense, it is possible to not be affiliated with a party and still have right-wind leanings, or left-wing leanings, or to move back and forth as issues that pertain to your well being favor one or the other....etc...etc.

as for you liking to argue, it was just a mere question/comment, in the past few political threads you have been one of the more outspoken, even in the face of tremendous scrutiny and evidence against your cases, but you've still stayed stalwart to whatever cause you had, people that do this, generally don't ever care to change their mind, or let anything change their mind, they just, as I mentioned, like to argue.

this isn't a knock on you, just something I've noticed from a couple years of participating in internet forums, you may or may not fit this description, as with almost everyone who argues here, arguments on the internet are pretty pointless anyway, it's naive to think you'll actually change anyone's mind on something, the best you can hope for is agreeing to disagree, and even that is petty sometimes. Sure there are exceptions, but most of the time, regardless of what people say ("show me evidence to the contrary and I'll change my mind") they never actually will, ya know?

The point is to work towards that, by other means than excessive ammounts of do-nothing programs. Equal opportunity is a Republican philosophy, equality is a Democratic dream.