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.
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.
^^^^
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The right and the left aren't "parties," they are ideologies and are widely different, as described by Paul Krugman:
Only on paper, and only in words before elections.
After elections, both of these parties act very similarly. And I think that is because the presidential administration of the US is basically bought and sponsored by special interests.
I've said for years that the Right isn't for small government. They're for everyone else's government getting smaller, but never theirs.
And are known for sticking their noses into a person's private life to tell them what to do in their own bedrooms, and who men and women can be allowed to have sex with. They act like people from the 17th. century on steroids.
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.
I supported Paul, but ended up going with Johnson, because Paul didn't run as an Independent. Had Paul actually aligned with the Libertarian Party or as an Independent I would have voted for him in the presidential election, as I did like his honesty, and what he stood for. You are correct in stating that Romney would have been no better than Obama. I too vote with my conscience, but unfortunately in this country that is considered a "wasted vote." Sorry, but I don't want nor need the media to do my thinking for me!
As it stands, both parties are for big government. Republicans with their butting into people's private lives, and bedrooms trying to legislate morality, pandering to their rich cronies, and Democrats with their knee jerk bans and nanny state laws. Both are authoritarian in nature, and I have no use for either party!
I was thinking about the controversy on drug testing government assistance recipients. After realizing just how big of an undertaking this would really be...
Hair test randomly once per year. Detects marihuana up to six months prior use, other drugs vary in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
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.
I don't understand why you hate children.
Furthermore, your tautology is sickening and disgusting.
You scream that children are in poverty and suffering, so we should lavish all manner of medical, food, housing and other benefits on the parent(s), except after doing so, the children are still in poverty and suffering, due to the fact the parent(s) misuse and abuse the subsidies they are given.
Your brilliant solution is to heap even more subsidies on these bad parents, which will not negate the suffering of the children, or raise them out of "poverty."
Then we people attempt to identify these bad parents through schemes like drug-testing, you cry "Foul!"
So do you give a damn about these children or not?
The so-called "housing subsidy" is not an housing subsidy at all --- it's a drug and alcohol subsidy.
The Food Stamps? You're not giving the parent(s) money to buy food to feed the children, you're giving them money to buy alcohol and drugs -- yet you cry because the children are still hungry. I can't even walk to Kroger's without getting hit up for Food Stamp fraud out in the parking lot or in the store.
Do the drug-testing, identify these parent(s) and remove the children from the home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
The problem is WHO gets to draw the line in the sand and WHERE they're going to do it.
I do, since I'm paying for it.
You don't want to do drug-testing, fine. I offer you an alternative: Receivership.
For any person receiving TAN-F, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid or any other optional welfare program, they are assigned to an appointed Receiver who handles every aspect of their finances.
The very first thing the Receiver will do, is cancel all non-essential services and expenditures: no cell-phone, no cable, no satellite, no tobacco, no alcohol, no drugs, no World of Warcraft, no Netflix. Every penny the person wants to spend they must first justify its expenditure to the Receiver, the Receiver must approve it, and the Receiver will issue a voucher for the expenditure.
You want your hair cut, you have to justify it to the Receiver, who will contact the salon, determine the price and issue a voucher in that amount payable only to that salon and not valid anywhere else, and the person has 3 days to submit either the unused voucher or a receipt showing the cost of services rendered.
You still haven't figured out that nothing is free --- everything costs -- and you need to be creating disincentives to move people off of social welfare programs, even more so since Austerityâ„¢ is coming.
Drawing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
matt taibbi had a good piece on the FRAUD of the bailout.
Taibbi is a goddam liar. I own his ass. In fact, I trashed his Nazi Propaganda routine right here on C-D.
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.
I am 64 years old, and heard my father say the same thing, many years ago, he predicted then, what is happening now....
However none of this makes a case for some kind of rigid block on any intervention. Which 90% of the time is the argument used against it; the argument that it is "government intervention" on the level of say unreasonable search and seizure.
Reasonable lines can be drawn as to whether you are fulfilling your end of the social contract that is welfare. Not regularly spending your time and money on recreational drugs is hardly equatable to taking anti depressants or drinking a cup of coffee in the morning.
But someone could spend $5 per month on marijuana and still fail the test every month. At that rate it's hardly regular or abuse.
Given the freight load of money that is made from Legal drug sales I can't help but feel like everyone is on drugs because it's good for business not because millions of people actually need it. You can't honestly say that with everyone that gets a rake of the money from the tidal wave of pills out there that this isn't profit driven. The only difference is that one drug dealer spent a lot more money on school.
Most of us are hypocrites. Sorry to say it, but it's a fact. Most people in general are hypocrites.
That being said, I disagree with your assertion regarding drug testing welfare recipients. I would not call any restriction based on any benefit intervention by virtue of the fact that it is voluntary.
Anyone who accepts federal funds in any way shape or form should be under scrutiny. Such is not intervention, but a pre-condition to an unearned benefit.
I'm with you on the "Patriot" Act, gay marriage, etc etc.
Cue the "you don't care about corporate welfare" garbage. I'll be ignoring it.
Will the benevolent Feds recognize Medical marijuana and allow those that test positive to accept Federal funds?
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,878,203 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
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?
But someone could spend $5 per month on marijuana and still fail the test every month. At that rate it's hardly regular or abuse.
Given the freight load of money that is made from Legal drug sales I can't help but feel like everyone is on drugs because it's good for business not because millions of people actually need it. You can't honestly say that with everyone that gets a rake of the money from the tidal wave of pills out there that this isn't profit driven. The only difference is that one drug dealer spent a lot more money on school.
And to be honest I wouldn't care if someone smoked a little weed every now and then.
Doesn't matter. This all goes into a general pool, and there's no specific prerequisite as far as contribution goes. We do not have a legitimate claim on any of the money we pay in taxes that would rise to the level of an earned benefit.
This money is contributed by many and disbursed based on certain conditions. Those conditions can be whatever society deems appropriate, barring anything that would violate specific enumerated criteria covered by equal protection.
Agreed. I think people miss this point. The funds are fungible.
If your government needs x amount it will raise it somehow. You have to replace what you lost, unless the goal is too lower spending. example - If you get rid of property tax then you increase sales tax to make up the difference. or Short a little because property values have dropped bump up the rates as well as make the value of an empty lot higher.
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.
Sorry, but I don't want nor need the media to do my thinking for me!
