Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a sad state, the GOP knew from the beginning that Romney was their choice. It's too bad that they threw so many under the bus to promote him. Here in Virginia it got nasty, as well as many other areas, in regards to the Ron Paul people. They tried to change convention rules at the last minute, suppress delegate applications, you name it, they tried everything all for Romney. I would have never voted for him either way, there was no difference between him and Obama! However, few can see that. My vote went to Johnson. I voted with my conscience, not consensus. I am just grateful that many are waking up and realizing it's not about a label, or abortion, or any other emotional hot button topic that doesn't help our country. Conversations are being started, debates are being had, and ideas are being exchanged by people on opposite sides of issues and that is what's important. It's a start.
The right/left paradigm is there to give the people an illusion of choice. There really are little fundamental differences between the two parties, just a few hot button, "emotional" issues to keep the people divided. In the end, the same party wins, because there really is only one choice . Of course if any independent candidate or green candidate comes into the picture what happens? The two parties push them out immediately, discrediting them, outspending them until they drop out or become irrelevant.
The right and the left aren't "parties," they are ideologies and are widely different, as described by Paul Krugman:
Quote:
And the real challenge we face is not how to resolve our differences — something that won’t happen any time soon — but how to keep the expression of those differences within bounds.
What are the differences I’m talking about?
One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
There’s no middle ground between these views. One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose.
This deep divide in American political morality — for that’s what it amounts to — is a relatively recent development. Commentators who pine for the days of civility and bipartisanship are, whether they realize it or not, pining for the days when the Republican Party accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state, and was even willing to contemplate expanding it. As many analysts have noted, the Obama health reform — whose passage was met with vandalism and death threats against members of Congress — was modeled on Republican plans from the 1990s.
And the left isn't much better
When will Americans start understanding that, both sides are corrupt!
Most Americans are either blind-sided and just don't care. They support political corruption and don't want civil liberties, which is why they overwhelmingly rely on both sides.
They think the government is the answer to everything.
What level of scrutiny? Does that include submitting to a urinalysis before receiving every payment? And what is your definition of "unearned" benefits? Unemployment checks are covered by unemployment insurance that you pay for while you work - its not unearned, itslike auto insurance. You pay into it so you collect when you need to. So would you exempt these people?
Unemployment is one of those Federal/State things ( FUTA/SUTA)
With the exception of Alaska, NJ and Pa , employees donot pay into Unemployment insurance.
All unemployment insurance is managed at the state level. The maximum weekly benefit varies state to state. In 2013, the range is $240/AZ to $653/Ma.
The continued temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits to a maximum of 104 weeks will expire on 12/31/13. The incremental costs associated with ongoing extentions contributes to federal and state deficit spending.
As it relates to drug testing anyone, hair follicle testing is the least likely to be gamed and can detect certain substances as far back as three months. Any drug addict worth their salt can game a routine pee test.
I was thinking about the controversy on drug testing government assistance recipients. After realizing just how big of an undertaking this would really be I came to what I think is the bigger question behind this.
I don't understand how the right, the poster children of "we need less government interference in our lives" could advocate what would possibly be one of the biggest happenings of big brother "interference" in American history.
The right wing is generally all for things like the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, owning 25% of the planet's incarcerated population, constitutional amendments that define marriage etc. How on earth can the right wing claim to be so viciously against government interference in our lives, yet continuously support more and more government authority over everyone?
conservatives love big government. In poll after poll, conservative overwhelmingly favor every big government program the federal government created.
conservatives hate those programs that help groups of Americans that conservatives hate this is what they mean by big government.
The right and the left aren't "parties," they are ideologies and are widely different, as described by Paul Krugman:
" As many analysts have noted, the Obama health reform — whose passage was met with vandalism and death threats against members of Congress — was modeled on Republican plans from the 1990s."
May I add that Nixon was the first President to pitch National Healthcare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
