Posted by Tina
This has to be the most bizarre election cycle ever. News this morning is that disgruntled GOP donors are looking to back an independent bid for the White House. th logistics alone woud be very tricky, which tells us how desperate they are feeling with trump winning so big against establishment candidates. PJ Media concludes:
The GOP will probably survive Donald Trump but as a muich diminished political party, unrecognizable from what it’s been over the last half century. This is what has big donors worried. They fear that Trump’s presence at the top of the ticket will cost them at least the Senate in 2016 and eventually, the House.
But many Trump supporters – and to a certain extent, Cruz backers – see the destruction of the establishment as a positive good. The party will shrink, but what’s left will be purer – a distillation of resentments that resonate with many blue collar, middle class Americans. It will be interesting to see how competitive that Republican party will be going forward.
Will someone please ask the GOP what their policies are if they are NOT the very things they’ve promised (And failed to deliver) in several election cycles? We who have loyally supported them would really like to know.
The immortal wisdom of Scarlett’s Mammy comes to mind: “Cause they don’t know what they want. They only know what they think they want.”
Take, for instance, the smaller federal government. You keep saying that’s what you want, but every time we ask, say: Do you want to abolish Medicare? … You say no.
Now, I suspect you’re not being asked the right question? I suspect that if you were asked: “Do you want the government to defund federal food aid to brown children?” … we’d get a resounding yes!
But nobody is going to ask you that: 1) because it’s immoral and disgusting, and 2) because it is an infinitesimal percentage of federal spending and will not get you your smaller federal government.
You don’t know what you don’t know … which is why policy makers do not listen to you. What they do is front clowns to lie to you. This time they’ve gone a little too far, IMHO.
Well Libby that just shows how reasonable we are when seeking solutions to problems despite your nasty tendency to paint us as mean heartless SOB’s.
We DON’T say we want to “abolish” Medicare.
We say we need to “reform” it so that future generations will have a better healthcare choice and not be saddled with the growing by leaps and bounds unsustainable debt. It would be heartless to rip Medicare away from those who have already invested so much in it and/or are already in the system.
We tried socialism and was nice for as long as it seemed viable. Unfortunately it’s now obviously apparent that it’s riddled with fraud and abuse, requires a costly bureaucracy, and creates unsustainable debt that will greatly increase as the boomers retire.
It would be good to start looking for solutions to problems that include fiscal impact. Creating a program because it feels good without bothering to notice whether it also harms the economy or creates future debt problems is irresponsible and frankly stupid.
“I suspect you’re not being asked the right question? I suspect that if you were asked: “Do you want the government to defund federal food aid to brown children?” … we’d get a resounding yes!
Libby you’re an intelligent person, why do you continue to act like an such an a$$?
“You don’t know what you don’t know … which is why policy makers do not listen to you.”
I suppose you arrogantly believe policy makers create these unsustainable programs that trap people in poverty and debt because they’ve “listened to you.” What a crock!
They do it for votes and power. And it’s a low life way to get rich, Dearie. Bill and Hill didn’t have a pot to pee in when they arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and look where they are now.,,all of it from promoting dependency. They are as phony as you are. They lie about how much they care about “brown people” while they support the education unions that keep “brown people’s” kids stuck in failing broken down schools.
Had all of the money we’ve spent on programs for the poor in the last sixty years been spent and managed wisely we would have the highest level of education and training for ALL of our kids and by now we would have little need for your dependency programs.
And don’t talk to me about clowns till you look at your own. Bernie and Hillary are two of the biggest clowns to come down the pike…I’m sure you’ve seen Hillary bark like a dog and sport four minute coughing fits! Oh…and she’s a criminal to boot. And Bernie’s out there telling young people there is a free lunch so Hillary tries to match his ignorant pandering for votes and power.
Tina it is not what you are saying about medicare it is what your politicians say. They want to privatize it. They want to give future recipients a voucher for the rest of their lives. last election it was $15,000 for the rest of your life!
To rip medicare away from those who want to rip it away from the rest of us in the future? I say do it!
You guys sit on socialized medicine and want to take it from us. The solution is to raise the cap. Not privatize it where profit is more important. Not a 15K voucher that would not cover one major incident.
You do not pay for healthcare I do. yet you want to allow these crooks to seal our fate to an early death.
Also Bernie has not proposed a free lunch. You are clueless. The plans are out and the people will pay for these things. You should do your homework rather than repeat RW talking points.
Ca had free college before. Did you even pay for it? Or were you in the first generations to pay that low fee? Now it is all about corrupt profits not education.
Charter schools are ripping off taxpayers and yet you turn your head.
We pay taxes for our welfare not an investor to profit off them.
I don’t think the GOP or the country will survive a Trump presidency.
This church leader speaks out to address Trumps character and why he’s voting against him. I agree with him and add for similar reasons wouldn’t vote for Hillary either.
This Isn’t Funny Anymore: Why I’m Voting Against Donald Trump:
http://www.thomasmckenzie.com/blog/this-isnt-funny-anymore-why-im-voting-against-donald-trump
Now, see, this is what I mean. You say “all the money” like there’s been all this profligate spending, when, dating from Reagan, just the opposite is true.
You don’t know what you don’t know.
I will be one of the first to buy a bumper sticker that says, “I didn’t vote for Obama or Trump.”
Donald Trump Turned Down 94.4 Percent of American Job Applicants, Applied for Hundreds of ‘H’ Visas Instead:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431908/donald-trump-immigration-hypocrite-who-ignores-american-workers
Ted Cruz SCHOOLS Chuck Todd on Trump’s MOB TIES!!
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-schools-chuck-todd-on-trumps-mob-ties/#ixzz41UswYBT4
This stuff is just now coming out. Just wait until the General when the media releases everything they’re holding on to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416646/Explosive-documentary-resurfaces-claims-Donald-Trump-sexually-assaulted-ex-wife-Ivana.html
Yes Libby, “all that money” spent on maintaining the status quo for the poor since 1965 amounts to $15 trillion:
That report was from June of 2012.
Where have these programs proven successful? Those who provide services and those who work in the bureaucracy that manages the programs are assured increases in government spending year after year. That’s job security and big fat pensions for the bureaucrats, all at taxpayer expense. Cato explains:
You tell me Libby, why wasn’t some of that money directed toward education and training? Why has your party fought so hard against education reforms in low income areas? Why does your party protect education unions? Why has your party chosen to USE poor people to increase the size of government and your parties power base of dependent poor instead of using the money to uplift the poor and reduce poverty?
It should be noted that NONE of this spending produces wealth to grow the economy and create jobs.
But the picture get even worse. After decades of institutional poverty and liberal style education, too many people living in poverty consider it a lifestyle and their right. The incentive and desire to be responsible, contributing members of society has been lost and deep entitlement and dependency has set in. An ugly ugly outcome that could be considered racist given the large percentages of “brown people” living in these conditions.
Now your party is taking it one step further. You’re importing poor people from socialist thinking countries to swell the ranks!
Spending in government ALWAYS increases…always. When politicians talk about cuts they are talking about “cuts” in the amount they will increase the next years spending for any program. Pick any year at the link and you will find increased spending (And increased debt).
You don’t know anything but what the lying radical leadership of your party, and its accomplices in the media, has wanted you to know.
I repeat:
…why wasn’t some of that money directed toward education and training? Why has your party fought so hard against education reforms in low income areas? Why does your party protect education unions? Why has your party chosen to USE poor people to increase the size of government and your parties power base of dependent poor instead of using the money to uplift the poor and reduce dependency?
Poverty continued to fall after 1964, and poverty since has never once gone back to pre-1964 levels. This is true for every single demographic group.
That’s what we have to show for it.
The “war on poverty” has done nothing to end poverty. In fact the justification for spending on poverty is locked in and encouraged by the Democrat Party. It’s time to take a different approach.
“This is true for every single demographic group.”
Chris what are you attempting to say? What is true fr every single demographic group? and what does it have to do with money spent on poverty?
“The “war on poverty” has done nothing to end poverty.”
Did I say that? No. I said that the war on poverty has reduced poverty. This is a fact; poverty has never once gone up to pre-war-on-poverty levels.
“What is true for every single demographic group?”
I’m not sure what part of what I wrote was unclear. The fact that poverty has never gone back up to pre-1964 levels is true for every single demographic group. Poverty among every demographic group fell after 1964, and though it has fluctuated since, we’ve never seen poverty levels among any group go back to where they were prior to the war on poverty.
That’s a success.
As the article I posted indicated, poverty was ALREADY DECLINING when the war on poverty was made into law. The WOP was not responsible for those declines.
In addition the article clearly indicated:
My point is, as was CATO’s, that for $15 trillion dollars America should have ZERO poverty!
And like a typical lefty you believe that $15 trillion dollars for maintaining a fluctuating poor population is just fine…a “success!”
Why do you settle for keeping people locked in poverty, bad schools, and drug infested communities?
Why do you think that we couldn’t have managed and spent that money and gotten a better result?
Why are you not the least bit interested in EXPLORING alternative ideas?
“That’s a success.”
No Chris…that is an abysmal failure. If you’re going to fight poverty why would you set up programs that sustain it?
The answer is simple…you wouldn’t, unless you were lying about the purpose which was, quote, “We’ll have them ni***rs voting democrat for the next 200 years.”
The real racist party has not changed it’s stripes.
Tina
If people earned a livable wage poverty would fall. Taxpayers subsidize walmart workers cause they do not earn enough yet the company rakes in the cash. Bottom line I hope you are not on social security while saying these things.
Pay People. Also our taxes go primarily to the Military Industrial Complex and corporate wars. Stop picking on poor people while collecting a socialist paycheck yourself.
Bottom Line wall street profits are above the welfare of Americans that is our system. hedgefund managers gobbled up many businesses and they are raiding the assets. Especially in retail. They sell the real estate to REITs and leave a shell of the company behind.
Americans are wage slaves yet you complain as you collect a free lunch paycheck.
That my friend is hypocrisy.
Every time they claim a war on something it is a scam. It is all about the few at the expense of the many.
No government has EVER tefrain from investingaxed it’s way to prosperity… EVER!
Your chosen candidate (Sanders) will suck all of the revenue into the big bloated government bureaucracy. There will be no new jobs. There will not be income equality just shared misery.l
The term “livable wage” is a political tease. it garners votes and that’s all.
Most of the budget and debt is wrapped up in entitlement/redistribution programs. Scroll down here to see the pie chart of total spending and you will see that the two biggest gobblers of 2015 tax dollars are SS (33.26%) and MC (27.42%) of the $3.8 trillion budget. We spent 15.88% on the military.
Defense of the nation is the ONLY big thing the Constitution gave the federal government to do.
Wall street profits have nothing to do with Americans unless they are invested in the stock market, which many citizens are…and all government employees are.
Wall Street does not make law. Wall Street cannot put you in jail. Wall Street does not prevent you from earning a good living.
Only the government can influence opportunity and wages and they blunt all opportunity to rise through onerous laws, regulations, and taxes.
I’ll get back to you…gotta go.
Example
Walmart CEO Michael Duke’s $35 million salary, when converted to an hourly wage, worked out to $16,826.92. By comparison, at a Walmart store planned for the Windy City’s Pullman neighborhood, new employees to be paid $8.75 an hour would gross $13,650 a year.
He earns more in 1 hour than employees in 1 year.
Pay people a fair wage, taxpayers subsidize those workers.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-ceo-pay-hour-workers-year/story?id=11067470