first, Harry Reid is going to win, because the woman he's running against is a lunatic.
but please explain this:
could you please tell me your plan for the following:
1. paving roads
2. policing the streets
3. responding to house fires
4. educating children
5. making sure the elderly don't die in poverty like they did before social security and medicare
and that's just a grab bag.
i'm fairly certain that no one actually wants to go back to that kind of brutal 19th-century society.
you also mentioned loans. have you heard of the phrase "predatory lending"? do the banks not bear some responsibility for literally preying upon vulnerable people and selling them mortgages and then cranking up their ARM's? it's quite convenient to blame Freddie and Fannie when the real chicanery happened on Wall Street.
what strikes me most about the above post is that you seem to feel as if you're getting a raw deal. that you've been screwed over. and that someone else has walked away with a $400 bottle of wine. what's sad is you seem to think the person with the wine is the mother who's house has been foreclosed on, or the guy who's been out of work for 18 months and may never be employed again, or the 40m people who can't afford health insurance. you are blaming the most vulnerable people in our society when you've actually been screwed by the most powerful.
where were you in 2000-2008 when the GOP and Bush spent like drunken sailors? were you marching on washington then talking about being fiscally responsible? or is it only now, with a president who believes that government has a responsibility to help the most vulnerable citizens of society, that all this spending suddenly becomes a problem? are you angry about farm subsidies? how about the huge leap in entitlements under Bush? the refusal of the GOP to cut Medicare? are you ready to cut defense? do you actually think that lowering taxes is fiscally responsible? are you protesting the trillion-dollar nation building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan? do you realize that only this would *actually* cut into spending and not all these relatively trivial spending "cuts" about "pork" and "waste" that amounts to nothing compared to a decade-long war in a country that bankrupted both the British and the Russians?
i live in DC. i saw them riding on our (tax-payer subsidized and totally socialist and intended to help poor people move around a city) Metro system. and they looked more like people feeling displaced by a changing culture than by people with any sort of coherent message to send anyone in DC.
" live in DC. i saw them riding on our (tax-payer subsidized and totally socialist and intended to help poor people move around a city) Metro system. "
Well, everyone with me and everyone I saw bought a ticket.
Let me be clear. I never said I was in the Tea Party, I am not. I went to an event so I could personally see who they were. Big Difference . Please don't say one side has crazy signs, and I have also been to Pittsburg for instance, and watch them smash windows, set fires and have crazy signs. Is it right for one but not another ? I dont see you mention the people in Toronto right now. Is that civil? signs are better than firebombs aren't they?
"where were you in 2000-2008 when the GOP and Bush spent like drunken sailors? were you marching on washington then talking about being fiscally responsible? or is it only now,"
I was screaming and yelling at every politician I could get a hold of telling them to quit spending money like drunken sailors.
" with a president who believes that government has a responsibility to help the most vulnerable citizens of society, that all this spending suddenly becomes a problem?"
The Presidents responsiblity is to uphold the Constitution .. Period. if he doesn't like the Constitution, or did not want to uphold it, he should not have taken the job.
Or, as he dearly wants to, make it into what he thinks it should be. If that is so, there is a process to change it, and he can do that until he changes it, or the States reject it. Until then, his Oath of office was to defend and uphold the Consitution. Period.
Those are the rules he agreed to when he took the oath of office. He swore to do so.
Unforunately, nowhere in the Constitution does it say healthcare is a right . No where. No where does it say " we shall by you a house" No where does it say, we shall provide you and income or owe you food. If it does, and i am looking at a copy of it right now, I dont see it. If the President and Congress want to change the Constitution, once again there is a process to do that .
I have been sitting in a room or my office for 3 straight days, for a very young kid who was shot. I will not charge him, and his parents feel better with me here, so I am. I dont have to be , but I care. There are 100's of thousands of me, and in other fields millions. Americans have always taken care of their own, more than any country on this planet. How much did we send to haiti and the Tsunami people? billions? Yet, in Hati, during the earth quake, Sean Penn had to go to washngton to BEG the Government for drugs to help stop the spread of disease. typhoid, Diphtheria, meningitis etc, and the Military and Government relief workers had the drugs. he BEGGED the congress to order the military to get these drugs ut in the field. It took days and many, many died. We could have had them out in hours. WE could have done a bettery job of the Government and military, although I do give them great credit for many things.
You have any outrage about that?
"are you angry about farm subsidies?" don't agree with them no.This is a a target of the tea party, repeal of farm subs. So you share a common goal of the tea party .
As far as entitlements, the tea party is not a republican party. If anything it would be more libertarian . BOTH parties have been borrowing against SS when it had a surplus. They need to put the money back. That money came from peoples paychecks . Quite frankly, I would rather invest it myself. I could do a better job than my Government.
Do you believe we should bail out union pension funds? I dont . The people running them have been stealing from their members for years . Shouldn't Andy go to jail? Or should the taxpayers bail them out? interested in this answer.
lower taxes is PROVEN to create investments. Clinton did it for capatial gains and look at the economy fly. High taxes at low or flat line growth is a death sentence. People will invest in business somewhere else. we are seing that left and right .
Iraq- George Bush SR stopped from entering Bahgdad for a reason. He knew there would be this power vacum. it is why he didnt go.
Jr, decides to go after them . That country has lived with a strong leader for 1,000's of years. it is what they knew, and kept them from killing each other.
But , Our Soldiers fought hard and sacrificed, and the iraqi people have some measure of freedom. What they do with it is up to them. Someone said somewhere in another thread, if we decide to go to war, they should go all out" i agree with that.
dnt Obama promise to have them home by now? Is Gitmo closed? First thing he did after taking that constitution oath thing. why is it still open? Different view when you get to see all the papers.
Afghan same thing lived that way thousands of years. Iran would be the thing. Is Obama going to go have Beers with them and sweet talk thim out of the Bomb? No. The second they can launch one, it is going nd we are in another war. he should hit them now.
yes, I understands Regans strategy to outspend the Russians in defense to collapse the USSR. it worked.
I am sorry, there isn't one country who has, or can meet the needs of everyone. if you think there are, can you name them? I am watching the ones that tried, fall apart as we speak.
There is some PERSONAL Responsiblity that comes with life. Don't you think? I do.